This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case. Additionally, the Federal Circuit issued four nonprecedential opinions: two concerning appeals from the Merit Systems Protection Board, one in a veterans case, and one in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
SIMO Holdings Inc. owns U.S. Patent No. 9,736,689, which describes apparatuses and methods that allow individuals to reduce roaming charges on cellular networks when traveling outside their home territory. SIMO sued Hong Kong uCloudlink Network Technology Limited and uCloudlink (America), Ltd. (collectively, uCloudlink) for infringement, alleging that four uCloudlink products came within claim 8 of the ’689 patent (as well as dependent claims that present no separate issues on appeal). In crossmotions for summary judgment of infringement, the parties briefed whether claim 8 requires a “non-local calls database” and, if so, whether the accused products had such a database. The district court granted summary judgment to SIMO that uCloudlink was infringing (and denied uCloudlink’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement), concluding that claim 8 does not require such a database. The case went to trial, which, after post-trial proceedings, resulted in a final judgment of $8,230,654 for SIMO.
We reverse. We reject the district court’s claim construction and hold that claim 8 requires two or more nonlocal calls databases. We also conclude that, in responding to uCloudlink’s summary-judgment motion, SIMO did not identify a triable issue on the factual question of whether, as uCloudlink asserted, the accused products lack a nonlocal calls database. We therefore hold that uCloudlink is entitled to summary judgment of noninfringement.
Moore v. Department of the Navy (Nonprecedential)
Mr. Michael Moore, appearing pro se, appeals a decision from the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) denying his request for corrective action after finding no violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA). The Board’s determinations are not arbitrary nor capricious nor contrary to law and are supported by substantial evidence. We, therefore, affirm.
Bell v. Department of Defense (Nonprecedential)
Petitioner Yolanda Bell appeals the Merit Systems Protection Board’s decision affirming the Department of Defense’s action removing her from her Program Analyst position with the Defense Logistics Agency due to unauthorized absence. Ms. Bell argues that a remand is necessary because the Board erred in its evidentiary rulings regarding the proposed testimony of three witnesses. Because we conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings, we affirm the Board’s decision.
Fermin v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)
Frederick Fermin appeals from the decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“the Veterans Court”) remanding Fermin’s claim to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“the Board”) for readjudication. See Fermin v. Wilkie, No. 19-5421, 2020 WL 3422153 (Vet. App. June 23, 2020) (“Decision”). Because we lack jurisdiction to consider the issues raised by Fermin, we dismiss the appeal.
Innovation Sciences, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Innovation Sciences, LLC (“Innovation”) appeals from a decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia awarding attorney fees to Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”). See Innovation Scis., LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-00861, 2020 WL 4934272 (E.D. Va. Feb. 18, 2020) (“Fees Decision”). We affirm.