This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions and one nonprecedential order. One opinion addresses an argument that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board adopted erroneous constructions of claim terms. Another opinion addresses an appeal from a summary judgment holding claims invalid for lack of eligibility. The final opinion, also from a patent case, addresses the enforceability of an arbitration agreement and a finding of indefiniteness. The nonprecedential order grants a voluntary dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

Bot M8 LLC V. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC (Nonprecedential)

Bot M8 LLC appeals from final written decisions issued in two Patent Trial and Appeal Board inter partes reviews that found claims 1–5 of U.S. Patent No. 8,112,670 and claims 1–10 of U.S. Patent No. 7,664,988 (collectively, the “Challenged Claims” or “Challenged Patents,” respectively) to be unpatentable. Sony Interactive Ent. LLC v. Bot M8, LLC, IPR2020-00726, 2021 WL 4876235, at *1 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 4, 2021) (“Decision I”); Sony Interactive Ent. LLC v. Bot M8, LLC, IPR2020-01288, 2022 WL 495115, at *1 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 15, 2022) (“Decision II”). On appeal, Bot M8 challenges the Board’s determinations based on its constructions of the claim terms “fault inspection program” and “boot program.” We disagree that the Board adopted erroneous constructions of those terms and affirm.

USC IP Partnership, L.P. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (Nonprecedential)

USC IP Partnership, L.P. (“USC”) is the owner of United States Patent No. 8,645,300 (“the ’300 patent”), entitled “System and Method for Intent Data Processing.” The patent relates to a method for predicting which webpages to recommend to a web visitor based on inferences of the visitor’s “intent.”

USC brought suit for infringement against Facebook, Inc., succeeded by Meta Platforms, Inc. (collectively, “Meta”) in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, asserting that the feature “News Feed” infringes claims 1–17 of the ’300 patent. Meta moved for summary judgment of invalidity of all the asserted claims on the ground that they are ineligible for patenting, under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court granted summary judgment that claims 1–17 are invalid under § 101. We affirm the district court’s judgment, for the decision conforms with precedent interpreting and applying § 101.

Bright Data Ltd. v. Bi Science (2009) Ltd. (Nonprecedential)

Bright Data Ltd. (“Bright Data”) sued BI Science (2009) Ltd. and BI Science Inc. (individually or collectively, “BI Science”) for patent infringement in the Eastern District of Texas. The district court entered final judgment that: (1) incorporated all terms of the parties’ mediated settlement agreement; (2) incorporated all terms of the arbitration award (the product of an arbitration that followed the district court’s enforcement of the settlement); and (3) held claim 108 of U.S. Patent No. 9,241,044 (“the ’044 patent”) invalid as indefinite. J.A. 3. BI Science appeals, arguing that the district court erred by finding an enforceable agreement. Bright Data cross-appeals the district court’s determination that claim 108 of the ’044 patent is invalid as indefinite. We affirm.