This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case, one nonprecedential opinion in a review of an arbitrator’s award, and one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Fanduel, Inc. v. Interactive Games LLC (Precedential)
This is a patent case involving a system for remote gambling. FanDuel, Inc., appeals the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review of claims 1, 6–9, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 8,771,058, which found unpatentable all challenged claims except claim 6. FanDuel, Inc. v. Interactive Games LLC, No. IPR2017-01491, 2018 WL 6112966 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2018) (Board Decision). The Board found that FanDuel, as petitioner, had failed to prove that claim 6 was obvious in view of the asserted prior art. On appeal, FanDuel argues that the Board violated the Administrative Procedure Act by basing this finding on obviousness issues that the patent owner did not raise in its responses. FanDuel also challenges the Board’s factual findings regarding claim 6. Because the Board complied with the APA and its obviousness findings are supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.
DYK, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I join Part II-A of the majority opinion rejecting FanDuel’s procedural challenge, but I respectfully dissent from the majority’s affirmance of the Board’s obviousness determination. I would hold that the Board erred when it determined that FanDuel failed to show that claim 6 of the ’058 patent would have been obvious because the Board used an incorrect standard for obviousness.
Lee v. FAA (Nonprecedential)
Evelyn Lee petitions for review of an arbitrator’s award imposing a 30-day suspension of her employment with the Federal Aviation Administration. Because substantial evidence supports the Arbitrator’s decision to sustain all three agency charges against Ms. Lee, we affirm.
McGinley v. Luv N’ Care Ltd. (Nonprecedential)
Michael L. McGinley is the inventor of a container or pitcher having a “flexible side wall portion” that can conform to the shape of a child’s head, patented under U.S. Patent No. 8,636,178 (the “’178 patent”). Mr. McGinley and S.C. Products, Inc. (SCP) (collectively “McGinley”), brought a patent infringement suit against Luv N’ Care, Ltd. (“Luv”), and a number of other companies, including Admar International, Inc. (“Admar”), BuyBabyDirect, LLC (“BBD”), Bayou Graphics and Design, LLC (“BGD”), Control Services, Inc. (“CS”), and HHHII, LLC (“HHHII”) (collectively “LNC”) that are commonly-owned and controlled by Luv and its principals. On LNC’s motions for summary judgment, the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana ruled that LNC had not infringed the ’178 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and that LNC had not shown that the ’178 patent was invalid. We reverse-in-part and affirm-in-part the district court’s claim construction order, vacate the district court’s order granting summary judgment of noninfringement, affirm the district court’s order denying summary judgment of invalidity, vacate the district court’s order dismissing Count III and awarding costs, and remand for further consideration.