This morning the Federal Circuit issued two opinions in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In the first, a precedential opinion, the court reverses an obviousness determination. In the second, a nonprecedential opinion, the court affirms findings of anticipation and obviousness given a lack of error in claim construction. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

University of Strathclyde v. Clear-VU Lighting LLC (Precedential)

University of Strathclyde appeals from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding claims 1–4 of U.S. Patent No. 9,839,706 unpatentable as obvious. Because neither the Board’s finding that the prior art disclosed all claim limitations nor its finding of a reasonable expectation of success is supported by substantial evidence, we reverse the Board’s obviousness determination.

North Star Innovations, Inc. v. Hirshfeld (Nonprecedential)

North Star Innovations, Inc. appeals the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s final written decision in an inter partes review determining that all of the claims of the challenged patent are unpatentable as anticipated and obvious. North Star specifically challenges the Board’s constructions of the following claim terms: “a second phase signal that is opposite to the first phase signal,” “second terminal coupled for receiving [a/the] boost signal,” “inverting buffer,” and “non-inverting buffer.” Because the Board did not err in construing these terms, we affirm.