This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions, two in patent cases and two in pro se cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court also released two nonprecedential orders, one denying a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to order the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to vacate an inter partes review and one dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order and a link to the dismissal.
Regents of the University of California v. International Trade Commission (Nonprecedential)
Regents of the University of California (Regents) appeals a decision by the International Trade Commission (Commission) determining that Feit Electric Company, Home Depot Product Authority, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. The Home Depot, Inc., IKEA Supply AG, Ikea of Sweden AB, General Electric Company, Savant Technologies LLC, Savant Systems, Inc., and Satco Products, Inc. (collectively, Respondents) did not violate 19 U.S.C. § 1337 by importing or selling certain filament light-emitting diodes (LEDs) and products containing the same (Accused Products). In the Matter of Certain Filament Light-Emitting Diodes and Prods. Containing Same (II), Inv. No. 337-TA-1220, 2022 WL 766226 (Mar. 8, 2022) (Comm’n Opinion). The Commission determined that Respondents’ Accused Products did not infringe claim 1 of both U.S. Patent Nos. 10,593,854 (’854 patent) and 10,658,557 (’557 patent), and that claim 1 of both patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Id. at *5–6, *29–33, *35–44; see also In the Matter of Certain Filament Light-Emitting Diodes and Prods. Containing Same (II), Final Initial Determination, Inv. No. 337-TA-1220, 2021 WL 6102808, at *74–98 (Nov. 19, 2021) (Initial Determination). Regents appeals the Commission’s determinations on claim construction, infringement, and invalidity. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(6). Because we agree with the Commission’s construction of “molding” and determine that its findings of noninfringement based on the “molding” limitation are supported by substantial evidence, we affirm the Commission’s determination without reaching the alternative grounds for its decision.
Regents of the University of California v. Satco Products, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Regents of the University of California (Regents) timely appeals four decisions by the Patent and Trial Appeal Board (Board) determining that certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,781,789; 9,240,529; 9,859,464; and 10,217,916 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 over Japanese Patent Application No. 2005/035864 (Miyahara), alone and in combination with other references.1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). Because we adopt the Board’s construction of “lead frame,” we affirm.
In re Gatabi (Nonprecedential)
Iman Rezanezhad Gatabi (“Gatabi”) sought reissue of his U.S. Patent No. 9,406,758 (“’758 Patent”) in reissue application No. 16/045,675 (“’675 Application”). A Patent & Trademark Office (“PTO”) examiner issued a final office action, rejecting the ’675 Application’s claims 1-34. Gatabi appealed the rejections to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”), which reversed the rejection of claims 20 and 33 and affirmed the rejection of the other claims (i.e., 1-19, 21-32, and 34). Gatabi timely appealed the portion of the decision affirming the examiner’s rejection. We affirm.
Cooperman v. Social Security Administration (Nonprecedential)
Leonard Cooperman appeals a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board finding good cause to remove Mr. Cooperman from his position as an administrative law judge at the Social Security Administration. Because the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and because the Board did not otherwise err in its analysis, we affirm.
In re Centripetal Networks, LLC (Nonprecedential Order)
Centripetal Networks, LLC petitions for a writ of mandamus to direct the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to vacate all decisions in this inter partes review (“IPR”) and constitute a new panel of administrative patent judges (“APJs”) to reconsider the IPR petition. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (“PAN”), Cisco Systems, Inc., and Keysight Technologies, Inc. oppose. Centripetal replies.
* * *
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition is denied.