This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Notably, Judge Newman dissented in part. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board and an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the erratum.
LG Electronics Inc. v. ImmerVision, Inc. (Precedential)
This appeal requires us to consider how to treat a prior art reference in which the alleged teaching of a claim element would be understood by a skilled artisan not to be an actual teaching, but rather to be an obvious error of a typographical or similar nature. LG Electronics Inc. appeals from the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s final written decisions in a pair of inter partes review proceedings challenging claims 5 and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990. In both proceedings, the Board found that LG had not shown the challenged claims were unpatentable. Because substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that prior art disclosure critical to both of LG’s petitions for inter partes review was an apparent error that would have been disregarded or corrected by a person of ordinary skill in the art, we affirm.
NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting in part.
The court today finds an “error of a typographical or similar nature” in the specification of the Tada reference and rules that because the error is “obvious” the erroneous portion of the Tada reference1 is eliminated as prior art. Maj. Op. at 16–17. I cannot agree that this error is typographical or similar in nature, for its existence was not discovered until an expert witness conducted a dozen hours of experimentation and calculation. Appx2428 (LG Elecs. Inc. v. ImmerVision, Inc., No. IPR2020-00179, (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 2020), Aikens Dep. 137:3–138:3, Ex. 1018).
Haynes v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
In 2021, Roger L. Haynes appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) alleging error by the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB). The Board dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Specifically, it found that Mr. Haynes filed a similar appeal in 2014, which the Board dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and that he was therefore collaterally estopped from relitigating jurisdiction. Haynes v. R.R. Ret. Bd., No. DE-3443-22-0009-I-1, 2021 WL 5080582 (M.S.P.B. Oct. 28, 2021) (2021 Board Decision) (Appx. 1–12). Based on the minimal details provided about the nature of the present appeal, we disagree that collateral estoppel applies here. We nonetheless affirm because Mr. Haynes did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Board had jurisdiction over his appeal.