This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion addresses an appeal from two final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding that claims had not been shown to be unpatentable. One nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal asking whether a district court erred in its claim construction in a patent case. The majority found that the district court did not err, while Judge Stark dissented. The other nonprecedential opinion affirms a lower court’s decision to dismiss a claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Finally, the order is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.
Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Life Sciences Ltd. (Precedential)
Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic Vascular, Inc. (collectively, “Medtronic”) appeal from two final written decisions of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) holding that it had not shown the challenged claims of U.S. Patent RE46,116 (“the ’116 patent”) to be unpatentable. Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Life Scis. Ltd., IPR2020-01343, 2022 WL 557277 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2022) (“’1343 Decision”); Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Life Scis. Ltd., IPR2020-01344, 2022 WL 557664 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2022) (“’1344 Decision”). For the reasons provided below, we affirm.
Barrday, Inc. v. Lincoln Fabrics Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Barrday, Inc. and Barrday Corp. (collectively, “Barrday”) appeal from the stipulated final judgment of noninfringement of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, which was entered in favor of Lincoln Fabrics Inc. (“Lincoln”) as to two of Barrday’s patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,573,261 and 9,127,379 (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). See J.A. 1–4. The stipulated final judgment of noninfringement was predicated on the district court’s construction of the securing yarns claim term. See Barrday, Inc. v. Lincoln Fabrics Inc., No. 15-CV165-LJV-JWF, 2021 WL 3076869 (W.D.N.Y. July 21, 2021) (“Claim Construction Order”); Barrday, Inc. v. Lincoln Fabrics Inc., No. 15-CV-165-LJV-JWF, 2021 WL 8263498 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2021) (“Clarification Order”). Because the district court did not err in its construction of the securing yarns claim term, we affirm the district court’s judgment of noninfringement of the Asserted Patents.
STARK, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
As is often the case, the claim construction dispute before us today presents a close call. Determining what a person of ordinary skill in the art, reading the claims in the context of the patent, would understand to be the scope of the claims is frequently entirely contestable, with reasonable (even strong) arguments on both sides. That is certainly the situation we confront here. For the reasons I explain below, I think the patentee, who proposes a broader construction than was adopted by the district court, has the more persuasive position. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
Mandry v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Javier Mandry appeals from a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.