This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in consolidated patent cases appealed from the International Trade Commission and Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The court also issued a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Broadcom Corp. v. International Trade Commission (Precedential)
Broadcom Corporation (“Broadcom”) filed a complaint at the International Trade Commission (“the Commission”) alleging a violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (“Section 337”) based on the importation of products by Renesas Electronics Corporation (“Renesas”) and other companies that are asserted to infringe U.S. Patents 7,437,583 (the “’583 patent”) and 7,512,752 (the “’752 patent”). In a final initial determination, the administrative law judge (“the ALJ”) held that Broadcom failed to demonstrate a violation of Section 337 with respect to the ’583 patent because it failed to satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement and because there was no infringement of claim 25. For the ’752 patent, the ALJ held that claim 5 would have been unpatentable as obvious over certain prior art. The parties then filed petitions seeking Commission review, and the Commission affirmed the relevant portions of the final initial determination. Certain Infotainment Sys., Components Thereof, and Auto. Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1119 (May 28, 2020) (Final) (“Decision I”).
Broadcom appeals (in the 20-2008 appeal) the Commission’s holding that there was no violation of Section 337 with respect to the ’583 patent, and that claim 5 of the ’752 patent would have been unpatentable as obvious at the time of the alleged invention.
Renesas also petitioned for inter partes review of the ’583 and ’752 patents. In two decisions, the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) held that claims 25 and 26 of the ’583 patent and claims 1, 2, 5, 7, and 8 of the ’752 patent would have been obvious over the prior art but that Renesas failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 17 and 18 and 20–24 of the ’583 patent would have been obvious. See Renesas Elecs. Corp. v. Broadcom Corp., No. IPR2019-01039, 2020 WL 6380139 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2020) (“Decision II”); Renesas Elecs. Corp. v. Broadcom Corp., No. IPR2019-01041, 2020 WL 6389949 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2020) (“Decision III”).
Renesas appeals (in the 21-1260 appeal) the Board’s holding that it failed to demonstrate unpatentability of claims 17 and 18 and 20–24 of the ’583 patent. Broadcom cross-appeals the Board’s holding that claims 25 and 26 of the ’583 patent would have been obvious. In addition, Broadcom appeals (in the 21-1511 appeal) the Board’s holding that claims 1, 2, 5, 7, and 8 of the ’752 patent would have been obvious.
We have consolidated these appeals because of the overlap in subject matter and legal arguments. For the reasons detailed below, we affirm Decision II and Decision III in their entirety, affirm the portion of Decision I holding that there was no Section 337 violation because Broadcom failed to show the existence of a domestic industry, and find the remainder of Decision I moot in light of our affirmance of the Commission’s holding of lack of a Section 337 violation and our affirmance of the Board’s determination of obviousness of claim 5 of the ’752 patent.
Norfleet v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
Fredrick B. Norfleet appeals from the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“the Veterans Court”) that set aside and remanded part of a Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“the Board”) decision that denied service connection for sleep apnea and dismissed the remainder of the appeal. Norfleet v. McDonough, No. 20- 6038, 2021 WL 3185607 (Vet. App. July 28, 2021) (“Decision”). For the reasons detailed below, we dismiss Norfleet’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.