This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential order in a patent case granting a petition for panel rehearing to the extent that the panel withdrew and replaced its precedential opinion in the same case. The order indicates that the precedential opinion, also issued today, differs from the original opinion only to the extent that the panel added one additional sentence, which explains why summary judgment was inappropriate. The court also issued a nonprecedential opinion in another patent case. Here is text from the order and the introductions to the opinions.
Edgewell Personal Care Brands, LLC v. Munchkin, Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
Appellee Munchkin, Inc. filed a petition for panel rehearing. A response to the petition was invited by the court and filed by Appellants Edgewell Personal Care Brands, LLC and International Refills Company, Ltd.
Upon consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition for panel rehearing is granted to the extent that the previous precedential opinion and judgment, issued March 9, 2021, are withdrawn and replaced with the modified precedential opinion and judgment accompanying this order. The only change from the previously issued opinion is the addition of a sentence on page 13, lines 3–6.
Edgewell Personal Care Brands, LLC v. Munchkin, Inc. (Precedential)
Edgewell Personal Care Brands, LLC, and International Refills Company, Ltd. (collectively, Edgewell) sued Munchkin, Inc. in the Central District of California for infringement of claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,899,420 and 6,974,029. Edgewell manufactures and sells the Diaper Genie, which is a diaper pail system that has two main components: (i) a pail for collection of soiled diapers; and (ii) a replaceable cassette that is placed inside the pail and forms a wrapper around the soiled diapers. The ’420 patent and the ’029 patent relate to alleged improvements in the cassette design. See, e.g., ’420 patent at 2:18–32; ’029 patent at Abstract. As relevant to this appeal, Edgewell accused Munchkin’s Second and Third Generation refill cassettes, which Munchkin marketed as being compatible with Edgewell’s Diaper Genie-branded diaper pails, of infringement. J.A. 18474.
In February 2019, the district court issued a claim construction order, construing terms of both the ’420 patent and the ’029 patent. Based on those constructions, Edgewell continued to assert literal infringement of the ’420 patent, but only asserted infringement under the doctrine of equivalents for the ’029 patent. Munchkin moved for, and the district court granted, summary judgment of noninfringement of both patents. See Edgewell Personal Care Brands, LLC v. Munchkin, Inc., No. 18-3005-PSG, 2019 WL 7165917 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2019) (Summary Judgment Decision). Edgewell appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). For the reasons discussed below, we vacate-in-part, reverse-in-part, and remand.
Intel Corp. v. VLSI Technology, LLC (Nonprecedential)
Intel Corp. appeals the final written decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in two inter partes review proceedings. The Board found that Intel did not show that the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,020,014 (the “’014 patent”) were unpatentable as obvious. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.