This morning, the Federal Circuit issued five nonprecedential opinions in patent cases. The opinions address ineligibility, mootness, claim construction, indefiniteness, and a sua sponte grant of summary judgment of noninfringement. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
NetSoc, LLC v. Match Group LLC (Nonprecedential)
NetSoc, LLC appeals the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas’s dismissal of certain patent infringement allegations against Match Group, LLC, PlentyofFish Media ULC, and Humor Rainbow, Inc. (collectively, “Match”), and the United States District Court for the Northern District of California’s dismissal of certain patent infringement allegations against Quora, Inc. The Texas district court held the asserted claims of NetSoc’s U.S. Patent No. 9,978,107 ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and the California district court similarly held the asserted claims of NetSoc’s related U.S. Patent No. 9,218,591 ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We conclude that the claims of both the ’107 and ’591 patents are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Accordingly, we affirm the decisions of both district courts.
NetSoc, LLC v. Oath Inc. (Nonprecedential)
NetSoc, LLC appeals the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York’s dismissal of certain patent-infringement allegations against Oath Inc. The district court held that NetSoc was collaterally estopped from asserting infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,218,591 following a decision by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas holding claims in related U.S. Patent No. 9,978,107 patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See NetSoc, LLC v. Match Grp., LLC, No. 3:18-CV-01809-N, 2019 WL 3304704, at *3 (N.D. Tex. July 22, 2019). Our determination in NetSoc, LLC v. Match Grp., No. 20-1195 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 31, 2020), issued herewith, holding the claims of the ’591 patent ineligible under § 101 renders the issues in this case moot. Therefore, we dismiss as moot NetSoc’s appeal of the district court’s decision.
Arbmetrics, LLC v. Dexcom Inc. (Nonprecedential)
This appeal arises from an infringement action Arbmetrics, LLC (Arbmetrics) filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against Dexcom Inc. (Dexcom). Arbmetrics asserts that Dexcom’s Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) systems infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,343,225 (’225 patent). Based on the district court’s claim constructions of either “emulsion” or “oxygen dissolving substance,” the parties stipulated that Dexcom’s accused products do not infringe the ’225 patent. See Arbmetrics, LLC v. Dexcom, Inc., No. 3:18-cv-00134, 2019 WL 7290541 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2019) (Claim Construction Order). Pursuant to the stipulation, the district court entered final judgment of noninfringement in favor of Dexcom. J.A. 2–4 (Stipulation); J.A. 7–8 (Final Judgment). Because we conclude that the district court did not err in its claim construction of oxygen dissolving substance, we affirm.
Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp. v. Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. and Crown Cork & Seal USA, Inc. (collectively, Crown) appeal a decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granting summary judgment in favor of Rexam Beverage Can Co. and Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp. (collectively, Ball Metal) finding the claim terms “second point” in U.S. Patent No. 6,935,826 (’826 patent) and “transition” in U.S. Patent No. 6,848,875 (’875 patent) indefinite, thereby rendering the asserted claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. Because the district court erred in its indefiniteness analysis, we vacate the court’s summary judgment of invalidity and remand to the district court in order for it to perform the correct analysis.
Maxill, Inc. v. Loops, LLC (Nonprecedential)
Loops, LLC and Loops Flexbrush, LLC (collectively, Loops) appeal a decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington sua sponte granting summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Maxill, Inc., both the Ohio and Canadian corporations (collectively, Maxill), and subsequently denying Loops’s request for reconsideration of that decision. In granting summary judgment, the district court determined that the accused toothbrush’s elongated body was not “flexible throughout,” as required by the claims. Because the court’s noninfringement ruling was based on an incorrect understanding of the “flexible throughout” claim limitation, we reverse.