This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a government contract case and two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Kiewit Infrastructure West v. United States (Precedential)
Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. (“Kiewit”) appeals the judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims granting the government’s motion for summary judgment and denying Kiewit’s request for an equitable adjustment for the cost of purchasing certain wetland mitigation credits. See Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. v. United States, No. 1:16-cv-00045, 2019 WL 2156459 (Fed. Cl. May 15, 2019) (“Federal Claims Decision”). For the reasons discussed below, we reverse and remand.
Sealey Technology v. SSB Manufacturing (Nonprecedential)
Sealy Technology, LLC (“Sealy”) appeals from the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in an inter partes reexamination concluding that the single claim of United States Design Patent No. D622,088 (“the ’088 patent”) is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Simmons Bedding Co. v. Sealy Tech. LLC, No. 2018-004259, 2018 WL 4181572 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2018) (“Decision”); Simmons Bedding Co. v. Sealy Tech. LLC, No. 2018- 004259, 2019 WL 1489534 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2019) (“Decision on Rehearing”). For the reasons below, we affirm.
Sealey Technology v. SSB Manufacturing (Nonprecedential)
Sealy Technology, LLC (“Sealy”) appeals from the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in an inter partes reexamination concluding that the single claim of United States Design Patent No. D622,531 (“the ’531 patent”) is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See Simmons Bedding Co. v. Sealy Tech. LLC, No. 2014-007985, 2015 WL 1481100 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2015) (“Decision I”); Simmons Bedding Co. v. Sealy Tech. LLC, No. 2018-003420, 2018 WL 2933452 (P.T.A.B. June 1, 2018) (“Decision II”); Simmons Bedding Co. v. Sealy Tech. LLC, No. 2018- 003420, 2019 WL 1489533 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2019) (“Decision on Rehearing”). For the reasons below, we affirm.