This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Notably, Judge Stoll wrote a separate opinion in this case concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part. The second opinion comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Finally, the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential orders this morning and late yesterday. The first summarily affirms a decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board denying registration of a trademark, while the second grants an unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss a case. Here are the introductions of the opinions and orders.
Polygroup Limited MCO v. Willis Electric Company, Ltd. (Nonprecedential)
This is a patent case involving lighted artificial trees. Polygroup Limited MCO appeals from the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review upholding the patentability of claims 7, 10, 11, 16, 18–22, 25, 26, and 28 of U.S. Patent No. 8,454,186 and claims 1–3, 5–9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 8,454,187. With respect to every claim except claim 7 of the ’186 patent, we reverse the Board’s determination that Polygroup failed to establish the unpatentability of the challenged claims. We conclude that the Board applied erroneous claim constructions and that, under the proper constructions, Miller teaches every limitation of claims 10, 11, 16, 18–22, 25, 26, and 28 of the ’186 patent and claims 1–3, 5–9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 of the ’187 patent. Polygroup has, therefore, established that these claims are unpatentable.
For claim 7 of the ’186 patent, the Board exceeded the scope of our remand when it considered a combination of Miller and Lessner. We therefore vacate and remand its decision with regard to claim 7 of the ’186 patent.
STOLL, Circuit Judge, concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part.
I respectfully dissent-in-part. I agree with the Board’s construction of claims 10, 20, and 28 of the ’186 patent and claims 1 and 7 of the ’187 patent, which, in my view, cover a different embodiment than claim 1 of the ’186 patent. Thus, I would affirm the Board’s patentability determinations. As to claim 7 of the ’186 patent, however, I agree with the majority’s analysis and therefore concur with the vacatur and remand of the Board’s decision as to that claim.
Webber v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
The Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) determined that Eugene Webber’s peripheral neuropathy service-connection awards already compensated Mr. Webber for a doctor’s recommendation that he avoid certain activities. The Board accordingly denied Mr. Webber a higher diabetes rating for that recommendation to avoid double compensation, or “pyramiding,” under 38 C.F.R. § 4.14. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) affirmed after determining that this anti-pyramiding rationale was proper and sufficiently explained. Since the Veterans Court properly construed § 4.14, we affirm.
In re Glascoe (Nonprecedential Order)
Deirdre C. Glascoe appeals from a final decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirming the refusal to register the mark SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF GOD. This court, having considered the Board’s decision and Ms. Glascoe’s opening brief, summarily affirms that decision.
Analog Devices, Inc. v. Xilinx Asia Pacific PTE, Ltd. (Nonprecedential Order)
Upon consideration of Analog Devices, Inc.’s unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss its Appeal No. 2022-1538,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motion is granted. Appeal No. 2022-1538 is dismissed. The revised official caption and short caption for the remaining appeal, Appeal No. 2022-1597, are reflected in this order.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs in Appeal No. 2022-1538.
(3) Xilinx, Inc. and Xilinx Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd.’s opening brief in Appeal No. 2022-1597 is due within 60 days of the date of service of the certified list.