This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a trade case and three nonprecedential opinions in patent cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Mayborn Group, Ltd. v. ITC (Precedential)
Mayborn Group, Ltd., and Mayborn USA, Inc., (collectively, “Mayborn”) appeal from a decision of the United States International Trade Commission (the “Commission”), denying its petition for rescission of a general exclusion order prohibiting importation of products that infringe U.S. Patent 8,028,850 (the “’850 patent”). Certain Self-Anchoring Beverage Containers, Inv. No. 337- TA-1092, USITC Pub. 4984, 2019 WL 2174055, at *1 (May 17, 2019) (Rescission Petition) (“Decision”). Because the Commission did not err in denying the petition, we affirm.
Akeva L.L.C. v. Nike, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Akeva L.L.C. (Akeva) owns a portfolio of footwear patents including U.S. Patent Nos. 5,560,126 (’126 patent); 6,966,130 (’130 patent); 7,114,269 (’269 patent); 5380,350 (’350 patent); and 7,540,099 (’099 patent); (collectively, the Asserted Patents). The ’130, ’269, ’350, and ’099 patents all claim priority to the ’126 patent and are referred to as the Continuation Patents. Asics filed for declaratory judgment that it does not infringe the Asserted Patents and, in response, Akeva countersued for patent infringement. Akeva also added Nike, Inc., adidas America, Inc., New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc., and Puma North America, Inc. to the suit alleging infringement of certain claims of the Asserted Patents. The district court granted the Defendants summary judgment of no infringement as to the ’126 patent, and invalidity as to the asserted claims of the Continuation Patents. Akeva now appeals. Because the district court correctly construed the claim term “rear sole secured” to exclude conventional fixed rear soles and also properly concluded that the Continuation Patents are not entitled to claim priority to the ’126 patent, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment.
Alacritech, Inc. v. Intel Corp. (Nonprecedential)
Alacritech appeals from the final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) in the above-captioned inter partes review (IPR) proceedings holding claims 1–7 of U.S. Patent No. 7,237,036, claims 1– 24 of U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241, and claims 1–21 of U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072 invalid as obvious. We affirm.
Alacritech, Inc. v. Intel Corp.(Nonprecedential)
Alacritech appeals from the final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) in the above-captioned inter partes review (IPR) proceedings holding claims 1, 6, 9, 12, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,055,104 invalid as obvious. We affirm.