This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and six nonprecedential orders. The opinion addresses a consolidated appeal from two Patent Trial and Appeal Board final written decisions finding all challenged claims unpatentable. The majority affirmed both decisions, but in an opinion dissenting in part and concurring in part Judge Dyk asserted that the Board erred by not properly considering amendments made by the patentee during reexamination. One order transfers a case. The remaining five orders are dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion, selected text from the transfer, and links to the dismissals.
Monterey Research, LLC v. STMicroelectronics, Inc. (Nonprecedential Opinion)
Monterey Research, LLC (Monterey) appeals the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (Board) final written decisions determining all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,534,805 (’805 patent) unpatentable. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Monterey Rsch., LLC, No. IPR2020-00990, 2021 WL 6339618 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 23, 2021) (990 Decision); Qualcomm Inc. v. Monterey Rsch., LLC, No. IPR202001491, 2022 WL 682743 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 2022) (1491 Decision). Because substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings and we disagree with Monterey’s claim construction argument, we affirm both decisions.
DYK, Circuit Judge, dissenting in part and concurring in part.
The majority affirms the Board’s finding that the ’805 patent is obvious over Oh. While I join part II of the majority opinion, I respectfully dissent from part I. Contrary to the majority opinion, I think the Board erred in holding that amendments made by the patentee during reexamination and the statements that accompany them did not narrow “single local interconnect layer” to require that all local interconnects be on a single layer that routes both bitline signals and a global wordline signal (the lateral construction).
Hornsby v. Federal Housing Finance Agency (Nonprecedential Order)
Having considered the parties’ responses to this court’s March 20, 2023, show cause order, we agree with the parties that we lack jurisdiction and that this matter should be transferred back to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
* * *
Although “we are cognizant of the Supreme Court’s caution against engaging in ‘perpetual game[s] of jurisdictional ping-pong,’ Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 818 (1988),” Dedrick, 573 F.3d at 1281 n.1, we agree with the parties that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, transfer back to the District Court for the District of Columbia is appropriate under the circumstances so that the court may conduct appropriate proceedings with respect to the remaining claims.
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
This matter and all of the filings are transmitted to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.