This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In this opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision that challenged claims were unpatentable as obvious. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Wisconsin; the second comes in a copyright, trademark, and patent case appealed from the Southern District of New York. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

CUPP Computing AS v. Trend Micro Inc. (Precedential)

CUPP Computing AS (“CUPP”) appeals three inter partes review (“IPR”) decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) concluding that petitioner Trend Micro Inc. had shown challenged claims in CUPP’s U.S. Patents Nos. 8,631,488 (“’488 patent”), 9,106,683 (“’683 patent”), and 9,843,595 (“’595 patent”) unpatentable as obvious over two prior art references: U.S. Patent No. 7,818,803 (“Gordon”) and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2010/0218012 A1 (“Joseph”). We affirm.

Blazer v. Best Bee Brothers LLC (Nonprecedential)

Brian Robert Blazer owns U.S. Patent No. RE46,421 and runs a business called Carpenter Bee Solutions. In 2020, he sued Best Bee Brothers LLC and RSP, Inc., in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, alleging willful infringement of the ’421 patent. In October 2021, the district court issued an order construing the claim phrase “receptacle adapter,” which appears in the patent’s two independent claims, and granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment of noninfringement based on the “receptacle adapter” construction. Blazer v. Best Bee Brothers LLC, No. 20-cv-00480, 2021 WL 4552784 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 5, 2021). Mr. Blazer appeals. We reject the district court’s construction of “receptacle adapter” as unduly narrow and instead construe the phrase to mean “a structure configured to receive and help retain a receptacle.” That holding requires vacatur of the district court’s judgment of noninfringement and remand of the case for application of the correct construction.

Hudson Furniture, Inc. v. Mizrahi (Nonprecedential)

Alan Mizrahi, dba Alan Mizrahi Lighting and Lighting Design Wholesalers, Inc., appeals a Southern District of New York decision denying Mizrahi’s motion for reconsideration of a decision granting Hudson Furniture, Inc. and Barlas Baylar’s (collectively, Hudson) motion for alternative service, denying Mizrahi’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and granting Hudson’s motion for a preliminary injunction. For the following reasons, we affirm.