This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, one nonprecedential opinion, three nonprecedential orders, and two Rule 36 judgments. The precedential opinions address appeals from judgements of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board related to the patentability of claims. The nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment in a patent case decided by a Texas district court. One nonprecedential order transfers a case, and two are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the transfer order, and links to the dismissals and Rule 36 judgments.
Sisvel International S.A. v. Sierra Wireless, Inc. (Precedential Opinion)
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) determined claims 1–3 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 6,529,561 (’561 patent) were unpatentable, but upheld claims 4–8 and 10. Cradlepoint, Inc. v. Sisvel Int’l S.A., No. IPR2020-01099, 2021 WL 6655659, at *27 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 18, 2021) (Decision). Sisvel International S.A. (Sisvel) appeals the Board’s unpatentability determination of claims 1–3 and 9; Sierra Wireless, Inc. and Telit Cinterion Deutschland GmbH (collectively, Cross-Appellants) appeal the Board’s upholding of claims 4–8 and 10. As to the appeal, we affirm. As to the cross-appeal, we affirm-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand.
Schwendimann v. Neenah, Inc. (Precedential Opinion)
Jodi A. Schwendimann owns U.S. Patent Nos. RE41,623 (the “’623 patent”), 7,749,581 (the “’581 patent”), 7,754,042 (the “’042 patent”), and 7,766,475 (the “’475 patent”) (collectively, the “Appealed Patents”). Ms. Schwendimann appeals from four final written decisions of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) holding all claims of the ’623 patent, ’042 patent, and ’475 patent and claims 1–6, 8–21, and 24–31 of the ’581 patent (the “Challenged Claims”) unpatentable as obvious in view of asserted prior art.
WSOU Investments LLC v. Google LLC (Nonprecedential Opinion)
WSOU Investments LLC (“WSOU”) appeals from a final judgment of invalidity of independent claim 9, and claims 10–16 dependent therefrom, of WSOU’s U.S. Patent 8,751,585 (“’585 patent”) by the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. WSOU Invests., LLC dba, Brazos Licensing and Dev. v. Google LLC, No. 6:20-CV-00577 (W.D. Tex. 2021). The district court construed several limitations in independent claim 9 to be indefinite as means-plus-function limitations without sufficient corresponding structure, and the parties jointly stipulated to a final judgment of invalidity of claims 9–16 under the district court’s construction. J.A. 598. The district court granted the stipulation and entered final judgment of invalidity. WSOU timely appeals the relevant constructions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
Because the district court correctly construed the limitation “a collaborative application management processor configured to manage collaborative applications” to be in means-plus-function form, and because the specification lacks corresponding structure, we affirm. We need not and do not address the district court’s holding of indefiniteness of the remaining limitations at issue.
Anderson v. Merit Systems Protections Board (Nonprecedential Order)
Under the circumstances, we conclude pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 that transfer is appropriate to the Central District of California, where the employment action occurred. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition for review and all of the filings are transmitted to the United States District Court for the Central District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
Rule 36 Judgments
- Interdigital Technology Corp. v. Lenovo Holding Company, Inc.
- Interdigital Technology Corp. v. Lenovo Holding Company, Inc.