Today the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court also issued two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases. The first comes in a case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the second comes in a case appealed from the District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Valles v. Department of State (Precedential)
Joseph Valles appeals the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) affirming his removal from employment with the United States Department of State (“agency”). We affirm.
Qiagen North American Holdings v. HandyLab, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Qiagen North American Holdings, Inc. (“Qiagen Holdings”) and NeuMoDx Molecular, Inc. (“NeuMoDx”) (collectively, “Qiagen”) appeal from the Final Written Decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) holding that the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,998,708 (“the ’708 Patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 8,323,900 (“the ’900 Patent”) would have been non-obvious. See Qiagen N. Am. Holdings, Inc. v. HandyLab, Inc., No. IPR2019-00488 (P.T.A.B. July 14, 2020); NeuMoDx Molecular, Inc. v. HandyLab, Inc., No. IPR2019-01493 (P.T.A.B. July 14, 2020); Qiagen N. Am. Holdings, Inc. v. HandyLab, Inc., No. IPR2019-00490 (P.T.A.B. July 14, 2020); NeuMoDx Molecular, Inc. v. HandyLab, Inc., No. IPR2019-01494 (P.T.A.B. July 14, 2020). This appeal focuses specifically on the challenged independent claims of the two patents. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
CardioNet, LLC and Braemar Manufacturing, LLC (collectively, “CardioNet”) appeal from the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granting summary judgment that InfoBionic did not infringe claims 1–2, 8, 11–12, and 20–21 of U.S. Patent 7,099,715 (“the ’715 patent”). CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-11803-IT, 2020 WL 4559934 (D. Mass. June 22, 2020) (“Summary Judgment Decision”). InfoBionic cross-appeals from the district court’s decision that the asserted claims of CardioNet’s ’715 patent are not ineligible for patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101. CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-11803-IT, 2017 WL 1788650 (D. Mass. May 4, 2017) (“Validity Decision”). Because we conclude that the ’715 patent claims subject matter ineligible for patent, we vacate the district court’s decision granting summary judgment of noninfringement. We remand for the entry of judgment of no liability on the ground that the district court should have granted InfoBionic’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to unpatentability.