This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, three nonprecedential opinions, and six nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion, which inspired an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, vacates a district court’s judgment of invalidity in a patent case. One nonprecedential opinion addresses subject matter jurisdiction; another addresses an appeal from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision finding certain claims unpatentable as obvious or as anticipated; and the third also addresses a patent appeal regarding obviousness. One order grants a motion to remand a case to the Merit Systems Protection Board, two orders deny petitions for writs of mandamus, and one order transfers an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Finally, two orders dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions, selected text from orders, and links to the dismissals.
Finjan LLC v. SonicWall, Inc. (Precedential Opinion)
Finjan LLC sued SonicWall, Inc. for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Because the district court based its judgment of invalidity on a collateral estoppel decision that we have since vacated, we vacate the district court’s judgment of invalidity and remand for further proceedings. We also affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement and the district court’s decision to exclude Finjan’s expert analysis.
BRYSON, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I join the majority opinion with respect to its treatment of the ’408 patent, the expert opinion of Dr. Striegel, and the district court’s judgment of invalidity based on collateral estoppel. However, I believe that the district court erred in its disposition of the Downloadable patents, and I would not affirm the judgment as to those patents.
Hawthorne v. Secretary of the Army (Nonprecedential Opinion)
David Hawthorne appeals a decision of the District Court for the Northern District of Alabama dismissing his case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.
Monterey Research, LLC v. Vidal (Nonprecedential Opinion)
Monterey Research, LLC (“Monterey”) appeals the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“the Board”) final written decisions in IPR2020-00989 (the “’989 IPR”) and IPR202001493 (the “’1493 IPR”). In the ’989 IPR, the Board found claims 1–3, 6–10, 13–17, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 6,765,407 (the “’407 patent”) unpatentable as obvious in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,728,871 (“Vorbach”). In the ’1493 IPR, the Board found claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 15, and 17 of the ’407 patent unpatentable as anticipated by the PIC16C7X Datasheet (“PIC16”) and claims 2, 9, and 16 unpatentable as obvious in view of PIC16 and AN594 Application Note (“AN594”). We affirm.
Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC v. Intellectual Pixels Limited (Nonprecedential Opinion)
Sony Interactive Entertainment, LLC (“Sony”) appeals the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“the Board”) final written decision declining to find claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,681,109 (“the ’109 patent”) unpatentable as obvious. We vacate and remand.
Jenkins v. Merit System Protection Board (Nonprecedential Order)
The Merit Systems Protection Board moves unopposed to waive the requirements of Federal Circuit Rule 27(f) and to remand this case to the Board “to consider in the first instance whether Archuleta v. Hopper, 786 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2015), warrants a different result in this case.” Mot. at 1.
***
Upon consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motion is granted. The case is remanded to the Board to reconsider its decision consistent with the motion and this order.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
In re Witchard (Nonprecedential Order)
Joseph Witchard petitions this court for a writ of mandamus and moves for leave to amend his petition. Mr. Witchard also moves pursuant to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure to enjoin his “unjust imprisonment sentence of 331-months . . . in lieu of awaiting . . . decision in this petition for a writ of mandamus.” ECF No. 18 at 1 (some capitalization omitted). For the following reasons, we deny his petition and motion for an injunction.
***
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The court grants leave to amend the petition and will provide Mr. Witchard a copy of this court’s docket sheet with this order. All other requested relief is denied.
In re Calderon Lopez (Nonprecedential Order)
Ricardo J. Calderon Lopez petitions for a writ of mandamus appearing to request this court direct several federal district courts to take certain actions in his prior cases involving torts and civil rights claims, contract disputes, Social Security benefits, and attempts to remove state court proceedings. He also moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and for various other relief, including transfer.
***
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The petition is dismissed.
(2) All other motions are denied.
Jones v. Fowlkes Gross (Nonprecedential Order)
Having considered Blake Jones’s response to the court’s July 20, 2023, show cause order, we now transfer his case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.