This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases appealed from a district court and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and two nonprecedential orders dismissing petitions for writs of mandamus. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.
Campbell Soup Company v. Gamon Plus, Inc. (Precedential)
Campbell Soup Company, Campbell Sales Company, and Trinity Manufacturing, LLC (collectively, Appellants) appeal two final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding that Appellants did not demonstrate the claimed designs of U.S. Design Patent Nos. D612,646 and D621,645 would have been obvious over U.S. Design Patent No. D405,622 (Linz) or U.S. Patent No. 4,909,578 (Abbate). Because the claimed designs would have been obvious over Linz, we reverse.
MyMail, Ltd. V. ooVoo, LLC (Nonprecedential)
MyMail, Ltd. appeals from a pair of identical decisions of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granting ooVoo, LLC’s and IAC Search & Media, Inc.’s renewed motions for judgment on the pleadings. In a prior appeal, this court vacated the district court’s judgments on the pleadings and remanded because the district court failed to address the parties’ claim construction dispute before considering the eligibility of MyMail’s patent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. MyMail, Ltd. v. ooVoo, LLC (MyMail I), 934 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2019). On remand, the district court construed the disputed term, “toolbar.” Under this construction, the court again held that the claims of MyMail’s patents are ineligible. MyMail, Ltd. v. ooVoo, LLC (MyMail II), Nos. 17-cv-04487-LHK, 17-cv-04488-LHK, 2020 WL 2219036, at *22 (N.D. Cal. May 7, 2020). For the reasons explained below, we affirm as to both decisions.
Campbell Soup Company v. Gamon Plus, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
This is the second appeal from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,827,111. On remand to the Board following the first appeal, Campbell Soup Company, Campbell Sales Company, and Trinity Manufacturing, LLC (collectively, “Campbell”) and patent owner Gamon Plus, Inc. stipulated to a single asserted ground of obviousness challenging only claims 17, 20, 25, and 26. The Board held that Campbell failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims were unpatentable. Because we adopt the Board’s construction of the dispositive claim limitation “offset rearwardly,” we affirm.
In re Bechard (Nonprecedential Order)
Ryan Thomas Bechard files a “petition for writs of mandamus, writs of prohibition & notice of removal of state civil actions.” Through this filing, it appears that Mr. Bechard attempts to invoke this court’s “original jurisdiction” to assert various claims, including contract claims and claims arising under the federal securities laws. Mr. Bechard also moves to “seal this case.” ECF No. 5 at 1.
* * *
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The petition is dismissed.
(2) Mr. Bechard’s motion to seal, ECF No. 5, is granted to the extent that ECF No. 2 shall be placed under seal.
In re Hartmann (Nonprecedential Order)
Michael Otto Hartmann submits a petition for a writ of mandamus, attempting to invoke this court’s “original jurisdiction” to assert various claims, including contract and federal securities claims.
* * *
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition is dismissed.