This morning the Federal Circuit issued four nonprecedential opinions. The first two opinions come in cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and concern decisions regarding obviousness. The third opinion comes in a case appealed from the District of Minnesota and concerns a grant of summary judgment of no induced infringement. The final opinion comes in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
KOM Software, Inc. v. NetApp, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
This case involves two inter partes review final written decisions, one from IPR2019-00601 (“the Sitka IPR”) and the other from IPR2019-00603 (“the Blickenstaff IPR”). In the Sitka IPR, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) determined that claims 1–7, 45–57, and 59 of U.S. Patent No. 7,392,234 (“the ’234 patent”) were unpatentable as obvious over two prior-art references, Sitka and Cannon. In the Blickenstaff IPR, the Board considered precisely the same claims as in the Sitka IPR and determined that, in view of other prior-art references, some claims were unpatentable and that some were not. KOM Software, Inc. (“KOM”) appeals the Board’s unpatentability determinations in each IPR. NetApp, Inc. (“NetApp”) cross-appeals the Board’s determination in the Blickenstaff IPR that certain claims were not shown to be unpatentable.
* * *
Because we affirm the Board’s unpatentability determinations in the Sitka IPR, the issues raised with respect to the Blickenstaff IPR are moot. Accordingly, we affirm in KOM’s appeal and dismiss NetApp’s cross-appeal.
KOM Software, Inc. v. NetApp, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
KOM Software, Inc. (“KOM”) appeals two inter partes review final written decisions. In IPR2019-00592 (“the Dibble IPR”), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) determined that claims 1–7, 10, 12–17, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 6,438,642 were unpatentable as obvious over two prior-art references, Dibble and Cannon.1 In IPR2019-00591 (“the Carter IPR”), the Board separately determined that a subset of those claims was unpatentable as obvious over other prior-art references.
* * *
Because we affirm the Board’s unpatentability determinations in the Dibble IPR, we need not and do not reach the issues raised with respect to the Carter IPR.
Alpek Polyester, S.A. DE C.V. v. Polymetrix A.G. (Nonprecedential)
Alpek Polyester, S.A. and DAK Americas LLC1 appeal from the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granting summary judgment of no inducement in favor of Polymetrix, A.G. (“Polymetrix”). See Grupo Petrotemex, S.A. DE C.V. v. Polmetrix A.G., No. 16- cv-2401, 2021 WL 1239894 (D. Minn. Apr. 2, 2021) (“Summary Judgment Decision”). Alpek also appeals from other decisions issued by the district court in conjunction with the denial of summary judgment, including denial of Alpek’s motion to strike a declaration submitted in support of Polymetrix’s motion for summary judgment and denial of Alpek’s motion to amend its complaint, see id., as well as the district court’s denial of Alpek’s motion to compel production of an opinion of counsel. See Grupo Petrotemex, S.A. DE C.V. v. Polmetrix A.G., No. 16-cv-2401, 2020 WL 1983747 (D. Minn. Apr. 26, 2020) (“Motion to Compel Decision”). For the reasons provided below, we affirm all of the district court’s decisions.
Reid v. Department of Transportation (Nonprecedential)
Robena Reid was removed from her economist position within the Department of Transportation (DOT). Ms. Reid challenged her removal before an arbitrator, who reinstated her on March 20, 2019. The DOT later reinstated Ms. Reid, but not to a comparable position. The arbitrator then issued an enforcement decision, ordering Ms. Reid’s reinstatement to an appropriate economist position within the DOT. Ms. Reid petitions for review of the arbitrator’s November 16, 2020 enforcement decision reinstating her to an appropriate economist position. Specifically, Ms. Reid argues that she must be placed in the exact position from which she was removed. Because her new proposed position is substantially equivalent to her previous position, we affirm.