Opinions
on

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case addressing co-inventorship. The court also released four nonprecedential opinions, one in a patent case and three in pro se cases. Additionally, the court released five nonprecedential orders granting summary affirmance and an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the judgment, summary affirmances, and the erratum.

Blue Gentian, LLC v. Tristar Products, Inc. (Precedential)

Blue Gentian, LLC, National Express, Inc., and Telebrands Corp. (collectively, “Blue Gentian”) sued Tristar Products, Inc. (“Tristar”) for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,291,941 (“the ’941 patent”), 8,291,942 (“the ’942 patent”), 8,479,776 (“the ’776 patent”), 8,757,213 (“the ’213 patent”), D722,681 (“the ’681 design patent”), and D724,186 (“the ’186 design patent”). Tristar counterclaimed to correct inventorship of all six patents. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court determined that a nonparty, Gary Ragner, should have been a named co-inventor on all asserted patents. Accordingly, the district court entered judgment on the inventorship counterclaim in Tristar’s favor and ordered correction of the patents under 35 U.S.C. § 256. Blue Gentian appeals. We affirm for the reasons outlined below.

LBT IP I LLC v. Apple Inc. (Nonprecedential)

LBT IP I LLC (LBT) appeals five inter partes review decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding various claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,497,774; 8,542,113; 8,102,256; 8,421,618; and 8,421,619 unpatentable. For the following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand in part.

Ubiquitous Connectivity, LP v. TXU Energy Retail Company LLC (Nonprecedential)

Ubiquitous Connectivity, LP, sued TXU Energy Retail Co. LLC in the Northern District of Texas, alleging infringement of three U.S. patents. When the attorneys for Ubiquitous moved to withdraw from representation (because Ubiquitous terminated their representation), the district court—recognizing that Ubiquitous, a limited partnership, could appear only through licensed counsel— deferred ruling on the motion until replacement counsel for Ubiquitous appeared. Replacement counsel was never named and did not appear; instead, Charles Shamoon, on behalf of Ubiquitous as its president, assigned the three asserted patents to himself in his personal capacity and moved to substitute himself for Ubiquitous as the plaintiff. TXU opposed and moved to dismiss the case because Ubiquitous, by failing to retain replacement counsel, failed to prosecute it. The district court granted TXU’s motion, dismissing the case without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b); and with the case dismissed, the court denied Mr. Shamoon’s motion to substitute as moot. Mr. Shamoon in his personal capacity—but not Ubiquitous—appeals. We affirm.

Woznick v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)

Lawrence E. Woznick appeals a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims vacating the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ denial of entitlement to a higher level of special monthly compensation (SMC) and remanding for the Board to consider whether he is entitled to a higher SMC. Because we do not have jurisdiction to hear Mr. Woznick’s appeal, we dismiss.

Stein v. Gill (Nonprecedential)

Kathlyn M. Stein appeals from an order of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts transferring her Equal Pay Act (“EPA”) claim to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1631. We affirm.

Rule 36 Judgments

Erratum