This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in patent cases, four nonprecedential opinions in patent cases, and one nonprecedential order in a patent case dismissing an appeal as moot. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.
Lanard Toys, Ltd. v. Dolgencorp LLC (Precedential)
Lanard Toys Limited (“Lanard”) appeals from the decision of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granting summary judgment in favor of Dolgencorp LLC, Ja-Ru, Inc., and Toys “R” Us–Delaware, Inc. (collectively, “Appellees”) with respect to Lanard’s claims for design patent infringement, copyright infringement, trade dress infringement, and statutory and common law unfair competition. Lanard Toys Ltd. v. Toys “R” Us–Delaware, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-849-J-34PDB, 2019 WL 1304290 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 21, 2019) (“Decision”). For the reasons described below, we affirm.
Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC (“ECT”) sued ShoppersChoice.com, LLC (“ShoppersChoice”), alleging that ShoppersChoice infringed claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 9,373,261 (“the ’261 patent”). The district court granted ShoppersChoice’s motion for judgment on the pleadings that claim 11 was invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
ECT appeals. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). For the reasons stated below, we affirm.
Bushnell Hawthorne, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Bushnell Hawthorne, LLC (“Bushnell”) appeals a decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia holding all asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,933,951 (“’951 patent”) invalid as indefinite pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Bushnell Hawthorne, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 1:18-CV-760, 2019 WL 2745735 (E.D. Va. July 1, 2019). For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. v. Iancu (Nonprecedential)
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. owns U.S. Patent No. 8,369,278, which describes and claims methods and apparatuses for defining the meaning of certain radio control signals sent between two devices. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., which is no longer a party to this case, successfully sought from the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, and 6–9 of the ’278 patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board ultimately determined that the challenged claims are unpatentable for obviousness. Samsung Electronics Co. v. Huawei Technologies Co., No. IPR2017- 01472, 2018 WL 6519541 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 10, 2018). On Huawei’s appeal, we affirm.
Vederi, LLC v. Google LLC (Nonprecedential)
This is a consolidated appeal from the final decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in four inter partes reexaminations of related U.S. Patent Nos. 7,805,025, 7,239,760, 7,577,316, and 7,813,596, owned by Vederi, LLC. Vederi asks this court to consider two claim construction disputes and various factual issues regarding the scope and content of the prior art. Google LLC cross-appeals, asking this court to consider an additional issue of claim construction. We adopt the Board’s construction of the disputed claim term “composite image.” We do not adopt the Board’s construction of “moving” in the limitation “image frames acquired by an image recording device moving along a trajectory,” or its construction of “web page for the retail establishment.” Because the “moving” limitation is found in each claim at issue on appeal, we vacate the Board’s decisions and remand for the Board to analyze the validity of all challenged claims under the proper constructions.
Lone Star Silicon Innovations, LLC v. Iancu (Nonprecedential)
Lone Star Silicon Innovations LLC (Lone Star) appeals from the Final Written Decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) in inter partes review (IPR) No. IPR2017-01562. The Board held that all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,097,061 (the ’061 patent), claims 1, 3– 6, 11, and 13–16, are unpatentable. Lone Star’s appeal centers on the Board’s claim construction of the phrase “a channel region formed in the semiconductor substrate” in independent claims 1 and 11 and obviousness conclusion for dependent claims 6 and 16.
Because the Board correctly applied the established ordinary meaning in the art for the “channel region” limitation and we see no error in the Board’s conclusion of obviousness for dependent claims 6 and 16, we affirm.
Lone Star Silicon Innovations, LLC v. Nanya Technology Corp. (Nonprecedential Order)
Nanya Technology Corporation, Nanya Technology Corporation Delaware, and Nanya Technology Corporation U.S.A. (collectively, Nanya) petitioned for inter partes review of claims 1, 3, 4, 11, 13, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 6,097,061 (the ’061 patent) owned by Lone Star Silicon Innovations, LLC (Lone Star). In its Final Written Decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) held that all the challenged claims are unpatentable under both Nanya’s and Lone Star’s proposed claim constructions for the phrase “a channel region formed in the semiconductor substrate.” Nanya Tech. Corp. v. Lone Star Silicon Innovations LLC, No. IPR2018-00063 (P.T.A.B. May 15, 2019). Lone Star appeals the Board’s decision.
In a decision issued today in an appeal from a separate IPR on the same patent, we affirmed the Board’s decision holding claims 1, 3–6, 11, and 13–16 of the ’061 patent unpatentable. Lone Star Silicon Innovations LLC v. Iancu, No. 19-1556, — F. App’x — (Fed. Cir. May 14, 2020). Thus, this appeal is moot in light of that decision. Cisco Sys., Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLC, 928 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as moot in light of our affirmance in Lone Star Silicon Innovations LLC v. Iancu, No. 19-1556, — F. App’x — (Fed. Cir. May 14, 2020), which invalidated all of the claims at issue in this appeal.
Each party shall bear its own costs.