This morning, the Federal Circuit released three opinions, one precedential opinion in a takings case and two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases addressing, respectively, claim construction and non-obviousness. Late yesterday and this morning, the court also released four nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals, one for lack of jurisdiction. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and links to the other dismissals.
Jenkins v. United States (Precedential)
Brodrick Jamar Jenkins seeks compensation under the Fifth Amendment’s takings and due process clauses for the federal government’s appropriation of his two vehicles. He agrees that the government properly seized the vehicles pursuant to a criminal investigation, but argues that the government is liable for failing to return them after the completion of the criminal investigation, transferring possession of the cars to an impound lot, and selling them or authorizing their sale by the impound lot. The district court held that it did not have jurisdiction over the due process claim and granted the government’s motion for summary judgment on the takings claim. We vacate the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the takings claim and remand for future proceedings. We affirm the district court’s dismissal on the due process clause for lack of jurisdiction, but without prejudice to a motion for leave to amend.
Tubular Rollers, LLC v. Maximus Oilfield Products, LLC (Nonprecedential)
Tubular Rollers, LLC, Rolling Tool, Inc., and H. Lester Wald (collectively, “Tubular”) appeal from decisions of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granting summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Maximus Oilfields Products, LLC (“Maximus”) as to three of Tubular’s patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 9,057,224, 9,291,009, and 9,598,915 (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). Tubular Rollers, LLC v. Maximus Oilfield Prods., LLC, 506 F. Supp. 3d 489 (S.D. Tex. 2020) (“Decision I”); Tubular Rollers, LLC v. Maximus Oilfield Prods., LLC, 554 F. Supp. 3d 886 (S.D. Tex. 2021) (“Decision II”). In its decisions, the district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement of (i) claims 18–20 of the ’224 patent, claims 1–4, 6–12, and 15 of the ’009 patent, and claims 16– 20 and 24–26 of the ’915 patent based on its construction of parallel, and (ii) claims 1–5, 9–12, and 15 of the ’224 patent based on its construction of unrestricted. Decision I at 493–96; Decision II at 891–95; see also Tubular Rollers, LLC v. Maximus Oilfield Prods., LLC, No. 4:19-CV-3113, 2020 WL 6278284, at *6–10 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 4, 2020) (“Claim Construction Order”).
Because the district court did not err in its construction of parallel, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement of claims 18–20 of the ’224 patent, claims 1–4, 6–12, and 15 of the ’009 patent, and claims 16–20 and 24–26 of the ’915 patent, which is predicated on that construction. And although we agree with the district court’s construction of unrestricted, we vacate the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement of claims 1–5, 9–12, and 15 of the ’224 patent and remand for further proceedings because the district court failed to conduct sufficient infringement analyses as to those claims.
Tehrani v. Hamilton Technologies LLC (Nonprecedential)
Dr. Fleur Tehrani invented and owns U.S. Patent No. 7,802,571 (the “’571 patent”). Hamilton Technologies LLC (“Hamilton”), a licensee of another of Dr. Tehrani’s patents, petitioned for inter partes review (“IPR”) of the ’571 patent. The Patent and Trial Appeal Board (“Board”) instituted an IPR and ultimately concluded that claims 1-6, 9-12, 29-33, and 41 of the ’571 patent were invalid as obvious. Hamilton Techs. LLC v. Tehrani, IPR2020-01199, 2021 WL 6339598 (P.T.A.B. 2021), J.A. 1-69. Dr. Tehrani sought Director review, which was denied. She then timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). We affirm.
Purewick Corporation v. Sage Products, LLC (Nonprecedential Order)
PureWick Corporation moves to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. ECF No. 4. Sage Products, LLC opposes the motion and cross-moves to stay the appeal, which PureWick opposes. ECF No. 10.
* * *
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motion to dismiss is granted. The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
(2) The motion to stay is denied.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.