This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Additionally, we are including in today’s post a recent precedential opinion in a patent case. The court had published the opinion on its website on December 23, but then removed the opinion from its website on the same day. The court re-published the opinion on December 28. Here are the introductions to the nonprecedential and precedential opinions.

Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (Nonprecedential)

Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) sought inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1–4, 8, and 11–14 (“the Challenged Claims”) of Finjan, Inc.’s (“Finjan”) U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 (“the ’633 patent”). The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) issued a final written decision concluding that Cisco “ha[d] shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–4, 8, and 11–13 of the ’633 patent are unpatentable” as obvious, but “ha[d] not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that [independent] claim 14 of the ’633 patent is unpatentable” as obvious. Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., No. IPR2018-00391, 2019 WL 2237141, at *1 (P.T.A.B. May 23, 2019).

Finjan appeals and Cisco cross-appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). We affirm.

General Electric Co. v. Raytheon Technologies Corp. (Precedential)

General Electric Company appeals the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision finding Raytheon Technologies Corporation’s gas turbine engine patent not unpatentable for obviousness. Raytheon moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of standing. Because General Electric alleged sufficient facts to establish that it is engaging in activity that creates a substantial risk of future infringement, GE has standing to bring its appeal. As to the merits of the appeal, we vacate the Board’s decision and remand the case for further consideration because the Board lacked substantial evidence for its conclusions.