The morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions and a nonprecedential order. In the first opinion, the court affirmed a judgment of unpatentability in a case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  In the second opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment of the Merit System Protection Board.  In the third opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Texas. The nonprecedential order issued by the Federal Circuit granted a motion to withdraw a petition for a writ of mandamus. Here is the introduction to the opinions and order.

Maalouf v. Microsoft Corporation (Nonprecedential)

Ramzi Khalil Maalouf (“Maalouf”) appeals the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) final written decision in an inter partes review (“IPR”), finding claims 29 and 37 of U.S. Patent No. 9,503,627 B2 (“’627 patent”) unpatentable as obvious. Because the Board did not err in its claim construction or ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness, its underlying factual findings are supported by substantial evidence, and its analysis is sufficient for our review, we affirm.

Kristof v. Department of the Air Force (Nonprecedential)

Dale E. Kristof appeals a decision of the Merit System Protection Board. The Board affirmed the decision of the Department of the Air Force to indefinitely suspend Mr. Kristof without pay, pending a final decision regarding his eligibility for a security clearance. We affirm.

Ultravision Technologies, LLC v. Govision, LLC (Nonprecedential)

Absen Inc. (collectively, “Absen” or “Appellees”) for patent infringement. After claim construction, Ultravision stipulated to noninfringement of claims 14 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,047,791 (“the ’791 patent”) and claims 15 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 9,666,105 (“the ’105 patent”).1 A jury later returned a verdict of noninfringement and invalidity of claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 9,916,782 (“the ’782 patent”). The district court subsequently denied Ultravision’s motion for a new trial based on the ’782 patent claim construction. Ultravision appeals, arguing that the stipulated judgment and the judgment entered based on the jury’s verdict should be overturned based on two claim-construction errors. Because the district court correctly construed both claim terms, we affirm the final judgment.

In re: Lenovo Inc. v. Motorola Mobility LLC (Nonprecedential Order)

Lenovo (United States) Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC move unopposed to withdraw their petition for a writ of mandamus.

Upon consideration thereof, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted. The petition is withdrawn.