This morning the Federal Circuit issued four precedential opinions: two in patent cases appealed from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware; one in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and one in an international trade case appealed from the U.S. Court of International Trade. The court also released a nonprecedential order requiring the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas to transfer a patent case and an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order, and a link to the erratum.

CosmoKey Solutions GMBH & Co. v. Duo Security LLC (Precedential)

CosmoKey Solutions GmbH & Co. KG appeals the United States District Court for the District of Delaware’s entry of judgment on the pleadings holding that the asserted claims of CosmoKey’s U.S. Patent No. 9,246,903 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court held that the asserted claims are directed to abstract ideas and fail to provide an inventive concept. We conclude that the claims of the ’903 patent are patent-eligible under Alice step two because they recite a specific improvement to a particular computer-implemented authentication technique. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the district court.

Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software (Precedential)

This is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware’s decisions construing certain claim terms in plaintiff-appellant Acceleration Bay LLC’s four asserted patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,701,344, 6,714,966, 6,910,069, and 6,920,497, and granting defendant-appellees 2K Sports, Inc., Rockstar Games, Inc., and Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. We conclude that Acceleration Bay’s appeal is moot with respect to the ’344 and ’966 patents, and therefore we dismiss the appeal in part for lack of jurisdiction. We further affirm the district court’s claim construction of the ’069 patent and its grant of summary judgment of non-infringement as to the ’069 and ’497 patents.

In re SurgiSil, L.L.P. (Precedential)

SurgiSil appeals a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirming an examiner’s rejection of SurgiSil’s design patent application, No. 29/491,550. Because the Board erred in holding that the claimed design is not limited to the particular article of manufacture identified in the claim, we reverse.

Hyundai Electric v. United States (Precedential)

Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems Co. appeals a judgment of the U.S. Court of International Trade sustaining the U.S. Department of Commerce’s final results in the fifth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large power transformers from the Republic of Korea. Hyundai challenges Commerce’s decision to cancel verification on the grounds that the information submitted by Hyundai was unverifiable, Commerce’s reliance on facts otherwise available, and Commerce’s use of an adverse inference in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

In re Juniper Networks, Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)

Juniper Networks, Inc. petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas to transfer its case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. We recently granted a similar petition in a case involving Juniper because the district court’s refusal to transfer amounted to a clear abuse of discretion. In re Juniper Networks, Inc., No. 2021-160, 2021 WL 4343309 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 24, 2021). This case involves remarkably similar facts and many of the same erroneous conclusions. We once again grant the mandamus petition and direct the district court to transfer.