This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential order and a modified precedential opinion in a patent case as well as a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case. The Federal Circuit also issued two nonprecedential errata. Here are the introductions of the opinions, the text of the order, and the text of the errata.

Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. (Nonprecedential Order)

Appellant Network-1 Technologies, Inc. filed a petition for panel rehearing. A response to the petition was invited by the court and filed by Cross-Appellants Hewlett-Packard Company and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company. Cross-Appellants also separately filed a petition for panel rehearing.

Upon consideration thereof,


(1) Appellant’s petition for panel rehearing is granted to the extent that the previous precedential opinion and judgment issued September 24, 2020, are withdrawn and replaced with the modified precedential opinion and judgment accompanying this order.

(2) Cross-Appellants’ petition for panel rehearing is denied.

(3) The mandate of the court shall issue on December 28, 2020.

Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. (Precedential)

Network-1 Technologies, Inc. (“Network-1”) appeals a final judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Network-1 sued Hewlett-Packard (“HP”), alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930 (“the ’930 patent”). HP argued in response that the ’930 patent is invalid, and that HP did not infringe. The jury found the patent not infringed and invalid. Following post-trial motions, the district court denied Network-1’s request for a new trial on infringement but granted Network-1’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) on validity.

Network-1 appeals the district court’s final judgment that HP does not infringe the ’930 patent, arguing the district court erred in its claim construction. HP cross-appeals the district court’s determination that HP was estopped from raising certain validity challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) based on HP’s joinder to an inter partes review (“IPR”) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”). On cross-appeal, HP also argues that Network-1 improperly broadened claim 6 of the ’930 patent during reexamination.

For the reasons explained below, we affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, vacate, and remand. Specifically, as to Network-1’s appeal, we affirm-in-part and reverse-in-part the district court’s claim construction and remand to the district court. As to HP’s cross-appeal, we vacate the district court’s JMOL on validity and remand. And finally, we affirm the district court’s decision with respect to improper claim broadening.

Minns v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)

Appellant, Quebell L. Minns, appeals a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) affirming a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) finding that Mr. Minns was capable of substantially gainful employment and denying entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (“TDIU”). Minns v. Wilkie, No. 18-1135, 2019 WL 4741726, at *1–2 (Vet. App. Sept. 30, 2019); see J.A. 10 (Judgment), 15–32 (2017 Board Decision). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). We affirm.

Biogen MA Inc. v. EMD Serono, Inc. (Nonprecedential Errata)

Please make the following changes:

On page 8, lines 17–20, change “emphasized that whereas the attached carbohydrate groups in native IFN-β protein were glycosolated, the attached carbohydrate groups in recombinant IFN-β were not glycosolated,” to —explained that the glycosylation patterns in native IFN-β and recombinant IFN-β were different,—.

Whitewater West Industries, Ltd. v. Alleshouse (Nonprecedential Errata)

Please make the following change:

On page 9, line 25, “On appeal, the parties accept” is changed to “The parties now accept”