This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case and a precedential opinion in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit also issued nonprecedential opinions in two patent cases, a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, and another case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. Additionally, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential errata. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the text of the errata.
Infinity Computer Products, Inc. v. Oki Data Americas, Inc. (Precedential)
Infinity Computer Products, Inc. (“Infinity”) appeals the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware’s final judgment of invalidity. We agree with the district court that the patent claims asserted by Infinity against Oki Data Americas, Inc. (“Oki Data”) are indefinite. We therefore affirm.
Sharifi v. United States (Precedential)
Temor S. Sharifi appeals from a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) dismissing his claims against the United States for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”). Sharifi v. United States, 143 Fed. Cl. 806 (2019). For the reasons explained below, we affirm.
Caterpillar Paving Products Inc. v. Wirtgen America, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
These parties have been involved in substantial litigation in multiple forums. They own various patents on technology relating to paving and milling machines. This appeal involves one of those many cases.
Caterpillar Paving Products Inc. (“Caterpillar”) appeals from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”). See Wirtgen Am., Inc v. Caterpillar Paving Prod. Inc., No. IPR2018-01200, 2019 WL 6999868 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2019) (“Board Decision”). Following inter partes review (“IPR”), the Board found challenged original claims 1–6, 8, 9, and 12–17 of U.S. Patent No. 9,045,871 B2 (“’871 patent”) invalid as obvious pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board further denied Caterpillar’s motion to amend, finding proposed substitute claims 21–24, 26, 27, and 30–33 obvious. Caterpillar appeals only the Board’s decision as to the proposed substitute claims. Because the Board applied an incorrect claim construction during its analysis of those claims, we vacate and remand.
Saso Golf, Inc. v. Nike, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Saso Golf, Inc. owns U.S. Patent No. 5,645,495, which claims a particular golf club shape. Saso sued Nike, Inc. for infringing claim 7 of the patent. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois held the claim invalid due to indefiniteness. Because we agree with the district court that claim 7 is indefinite, we affirm
Shu v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
Petitioner David Shu appeals a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”). Because the Board properly dismissed Mr. Shu’s claim for lack of jurisdiction, we affirm.
Peters v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Elizabeth Peters filed suit in the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”), naming the United States as a defendant and seeking $5.5 million in damages for injuries allegedly caused by a judicial decision of a federal judge. The Claims Court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Peters v. United States, No. 20-247, 2020 WL 2124396 (Fed. Cl. Apr. 30, 2020). Because the Claims Court correctly determined that it did not have jurisdiction over Peters’ claims, we affirm.
In re Abel (Nonprecedential Errata)
Please make the following change:
On page 8, line 28, change “undermine” to “undermines”