This morning the Federal Circuit issued three precedential opinions. The first two come in related patent cases appealed from the Eastern District of Texas and address claim construction, infringement, and definiteness. The third comes in another patent case appealed from the District of Columbia and replaces an earlier opinion, issued by the Federal Circuit in August, regarding the shifting of attorney and expert witness fees in civil actions to obtain patents. The Federal Circuit also issued two nonprecedential opinions appealed respectively from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Finally, the Federal Circuit issued four Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.
Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Nokia Solutions and Networks (Precedential)
Traxcell sued Nokia for infringement of three patents related to self-optimizing wireless networks. After claim construction and discovery, the district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement for Nokia. Traxcell appeals. For the reasons below, we agree with the district court’s claim construction. We also agree that under that construction there is no genuine dispute of material fact that Nokia’s accused technology did not infringe. We therefore affirm.
Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Sprint Communications Company (Precedential)
Traxcell sued Sprint and Verizon for infringement of four patents related to self-optimizing wireless networks and to navigation technology. After claim construction and discovery, the district court granted summary judgment for Sprint and Verizon. Traxcell appeals. For the reasons below, we agree with the district court’s claim construction. We also agree that under that construction, Traxcell failed to show a genuine issue of material fact as to infringement and that several of Traxcell’s claims are indefinite. We therefore affirm.
Hyatt v. Hirshfeld (Precedential)
After adverse results in proceedings at the Patent and Trademark Office, Gilbert Hyatt sued under 35 U.S.C. § 145 in district court for award of several patents. The district court initially ordered the PTO to issue some of these patents and awarded attorney’s fees to Mr. Hyatt as a prevailing party. The district court also denied the PTO’s request for expert witness fees under § 145, holding that the statute’s shifting of “[a]ll the expenses of the proceedings” to the applicant does not overcome the American Rule presumption against shifting expert fees. On appeal, the PTO challenges both the award of attorney’s fees to Mr. Hyatt and the denial of its expert witness fees. Because we previously vacated and remanded the district court’s decision ordering the issuance of patents, Mr. Hyatt is no longer a prevailing party, and we vacate the award of attorney’s fees. We affirm the district court’s denial of expert fees because § 145 does not specifically and explicitly shift expert witness fees.
Levario v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
Many years after completing his service in the Marine Corps, Mike R. Levario sought benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for residual effects of a cervical spine surgery conducted at a VA facility, as well as for a vocal cord condition and a throat condition. The relevant VA regional office (RO) and then the Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied the requested benefits, both under 38 U.S.C. § 1110 (service-connected disability based on wartime service) and under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 (compensation for disability from VA medical treatment). When Mr. Levario appealed the Board’s decision to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court), that court dismissed the appeal as to Mr. Levario’s § 1110 claims and affirmed the Board’s denial as to his § 1151 claims. Levario v. Wilkie, No. 19-9109, 2020 WL 5200655 (Vet. App. Aug. 31, 2020); Supplemental Appendix (SAppx.) 1–9. Mr. Levario now appeals to us. We must dismiss the appeal, because we lack jurisdiction to decide the issues he raises.
Micro Mobio Corporation v. General Motors, LLC (Nonprecedential)
Appellant Micro Mobio Corporation sought to cancel a trademark registration owned by appellee General Motors, LLC, (“GM”) based on Micro Mobio’s prior use and registration of a similar mark. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB” or “Board”) denied the petition for cancellation. We affirm.