This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, one nonprecedential opinion, and two nonprecedential orders. One precedential opinion comes in a patent case and addresses issues of obviousness, infringement, and damages. The other precedential opinion comes in another patent case and addresses a challenge to analogous art findings by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding certain claims unpatentable. The orders dismiss appeals. Late Friday, the Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.
Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc. (Precedential)
Corephotonics, Ltd. (“Corephotonics”) appeals final written decisions (“Decisions”) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) concluding that claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,661,233 (“’233 patent”), 10,230,898 (“’898 patent”), 10,326,942 (“’942 patent”), and 10,356,332 (“’332 patent”) (collectively, the “Challenged Patents”) are unpatentable as obvious. The Decisions were each issued in inter partes reviews (“IPR”) initiated by Apple Inc. (“Apple”).
Corephotonics principally challenges the Board’s analogous art findings, arguing that the Board made two procedural errors and one substantive error. In terms of procedure, Corephotonics contends that the Board erred (1) by permitting Apple to cure the legally flawed analogous art contention it made in its petition and (2) by making analogous art findings that deviated from the contentions Apple advocated for in its petition and reply. As for substance, Corephotonics asserts that prior art references U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0026366 (“Golan”) and U.S. Patent No. 8,081,206 (“Martin”) are not analogous art.
We identify no procedural error in the Board’s handling of whether Golan and Martin are analogous art. We further hold that the Board’s determination that Golan is analogous art is supported by substantial evidence. However, we vacate and remand the Board’s obviousness determination for the Board to explain why Martin is (or is not) analogous art and how this finding affects its overall conclusion as to obviousness.
Cyntec Company, Ltd. v. Chilisin Electronics Corp. (Precedential)
This patent infringement case raises issues of obviousness, infringement, and damages. Cyntec Company, Ltd. sued Chilisin Electronics Corp., alleging infringement of certain claims of Cyntec’s U.S. Patent Nos. 8,922,312 (the ’312 patent) and 9,481,037 (the ’037 patent). Before closing arguments, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) that the asserted claims were not invalid as obvious. The jury then found that Chilisin infringed the asserted claims and awarded the full amount of damages requested by Cyntec. Chilisin now appeals the district court’s grant of JMOL of nonobviousness, the district court’s denial of Chilisin’s motion for JMOL regarding noninfringement and damages, and the district court’s denial of Chilisin’s motion to exclude Cyntec’s damages expert testimony as speculative. For the reasons explained below, we affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand.
Monterey Research, LLC v. STMicroelectronics, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Monterey Research, LLC (“Monterey”) appeals IPR decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) finding claims 1–21 of U.S. Patent No. 6,651,134 unpatentable. We affirm.