Today, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions and one nonprecedential opinion. One precedential opinion addresses an appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims and includes a dissent from the now-suspended Judge Newman. Another precedential opinion addresses a challenge to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s findings related to motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success related to non-obviousness. Finally, the nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case reverses and remands after finding abuse of discretion by a district court. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

GSS Holdings (Liberty) Inc. v. United States (Precedential)

GSS Holdings (Liberty) Inc. (“GSS”) appeals from a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) granting summary judgment in favor of the government and denying summary judgment in favor of GSS with respect to GSS’s 2011 deduction claim for a federal tax refund or credit for the tax year ending on December 31, 2009.  GSS Holdings (Liberty) Inc. v. United States, 154 Fed. Cl. 481 (2021) (“Decision”).  Because we conclude that the Claims Court erred by applying an incorrect legal standard to reach its decision, we vacate the judgment and remand for a determination under the correct legal standard.

Elekta Ltd. v. Zap Surgical Systems, Inc. (Precedential)

Appellant Elekta Limited appeals from a Final Written Decision of the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board that found certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,295,648 unpatentable as obvious.  Elekta challenges the Board’s findings related to motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success.  We affirm. 

Well Cell Global LLC. v. Calvitt (Nonprecedential)

Shawn Paul Calvit, Marc Pierre Desgraves, IV, Charles Alexander Elliott, Insulinc of Lafayette LLC, Insulinic of Hialeah LLC, and Insulinic of Hawaii, LLC (collectively, Appellants) appeal a decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granting a motion for preliminary injunction filed by Well Cell Global LLC and Well Cell Support LLC (collectively, Well Cell).  Well Cell Glob. LLC v. Calvit, No. CV H-22-3062, 2022 WL 16857060, at *11 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 10, 2022) (Opinion).  The district court enjoined Appellants from, inter alia, infringing certain patents owned by Well Cell and using Well Cell’s alleged trade secrets.   On February 9, 2023, Appellants filed an emergency motion to stay the preliminary injunction pending this appeal.  ECF No. 18.  On March 16, 2023, we granted this motion.  ECF No. 34.  After full briefing and argument, we conclude the district court abused its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction because Well Cell’s motion failed to show a likelihood of either success on the merits or irreparable harm.  We reverse and remand.