This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case reversing in part and vacating in part a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The court also issued a nonprecedential in another patent case, this time affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Canfield Scientific, Inc. v. Melanoscan, LLC (Precedential)
Canfield Scientific, Inc. (“Canfield”) appeals the decision of the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) on inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,359,748 (“the ’748 patent”) owned by Melanoscan, LLC. The ’748 patent “relates to the detection, diagnosis and treatment of skin cancer as well as other diseases and cosmetic conditions of the visible human.” ’748 patent, col. 1, ll. 22–24.
Canfield petitioned the Board for IPR of claims 1–8, 11, 30, 32–34, 46, and 51 of the ’748 patent, asserting unpatentability on the ground of obviousness. The Board ruled that all of the challenged claims are patentable. Canfield appeals, arguing that the Board erroneously refused to consider arguments and evidence that Canfield presented, and that the Board misapplied the law of obviousness. We conclude that the Board erred in ruling that all the claims are patentable. That decision is reversed as to independent claims 1 and 51, and vacated and remanded as to the dependent claims in the petition.
Mojave Desert Holdings, LLC v. Crocs, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Mojave Desert Holdings, LLC appeals from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) following inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent No. D517,789 (“’789 patent”). See U.S.A. Dawgs, Inc. v. Crocs, Inc., 2019 Pat. App. LEXIS 6418 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 10, 2019) (“Board Decision”). Mojave argues that the Board legally erred in its analysis of the prior art. Because we discern no reversible error, we affirm.