This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions in patent cases, one affirming a judgment of unpatentability in an inter partes review and one reversing a judgment of unpatentability in another inter partes review. The court also released a nonprecedential opinion in a pro se case and five nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC (Precedential)

Bot M8 LLC (“Bot M8”) appeals from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in an inter partes review (“IPR”) determining all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,078,540 (“the ’540 patent”) unpatentable. We affirm.

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Precedential)

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH owns U.S. Patent No. RE47,614 (“the ’614 patent”). Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) for inter partes review of claims 1–18 of the ’614 patent. In its final written decision, the Board found all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over prior art. Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, IPR2019-01657, Paper 39, 2021 WL 1158193 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2021) (“Decision”). Sanofi argues on appeal that Mylan failed to argue that U.S. Patent No. 4,144,957 (“de Gennes”) constitutes analogous art to the ’614 patent and instead compared de Gennes to another prior art reference. We agree with Sanofi. Because Mylan argued that de Gennes is analogous to another prior art reference and not the challenged patent, Mylan did not meet its burden to establish obviousness premised on de Gennes and the Board’s factual findings regarding analogousness are not supported by substantial evidence. We reverse.

Scott v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)

LaJuanna Scott appeals a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board or MSPB) dismissing her appeal as untimely. For the following reasons, we affirm.