This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in patent cases: one reversing a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and one affirming a decision by the International Trade Commission. The court also issued a nonprecedential opinion affirming in part and reversing and remanding in part a decision by the Central District of California. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Becton, Dickinson and Company v. Baxter Corp. Englewood (Precedential)
Becton, Dickinson and Company (“Becton”) appeals a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”), determining that certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,554,579 (“the ’579 patent”) were not invalid as obvious. We reverse.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. International Trade Commission (Precedential)
In this consolidated appeal, Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. (“Bio-Rad”) and 10X Genomics, Inc. (“10X”) each challenge a portion of a decision by the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) regarding Bio-Rad’s allegations that 10X violated section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. § 1337, by importing into the United States certain microfluidic chips. See Comm’n Opinion, In the Matter of Certain Microfluidic Devices, USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1068, 2020 WL 225020 (Jan. 10, 2020) (“Commission Opinion”). Specifically, Bio-Rad challenges the Commission’s determination that 10X did not infringe the claims of U.S. Patent 9,500,664 (the “’664 patent”) by importing its “Chip GB.” 10X challenges the Commission’s determination that it infringes the claims of the ’664 patent as well as U.S. Patents 9,636,682 (the “’682 patent”) and 9,649,635 (the “’635 patent”) by importing its “GEM Chips.” For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the Commission’s decision with respect to both appeals.
SPEX Technologies, Inc. v. Western Digital Corp. (Nonprecedential)
SPEX Technologies, Inc. (“SPEX”) charged Western Digital Corporation, Western Digital Technologies, Inc., and HGST, Inc. (collectively “Western Digital”) with infringing claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 12, 23, and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 6,088,802 (“the ’802 Patent”). In its claim construction order, the United States District Court for the Central District of California held that claims 6, 7, 23, and 25 were indefinite because the specification failed to provide corresponding structure for a means-plus-function limitation.SPEX Techs., Inc. v. Kingston Tech. Corp., No. 8:16-cv- 01799-JVS-AGR, 2017 WL 5495149, at *15–17 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2017). In a separate decision, the district court granted Western Digital’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of claims 1–2 and 11–12 because SPEX failed to identify an equivalent infringing structure in Western Digital’s accused products. SPEX Tech., Inc. v. W. Digital Corp., No. 8:16-cv-01799-JVS-AGR, 2019 WL 8194736, at *5–6 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2019). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement but reverse and remand the district court’s holding of indefiniteness.