This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion addresses an appeal in a patent case after a jury trial and bench trial in the Western District of Texas. The order transfers a case to a district court. Here is the introduction to the opinion and selected text from the order.

Freshub, Inc. v. Amazon.Com, Inc. (Precedential Opinion)

Freshub, Ltd. and United States subsidiary Freshub, Inc. (together, Freshub) sued Amazon.com, Inc. and several of its subsidiaries (together, Amazon) in the Western District of Texas, asserting infringement of Freshub’s patents on voice-processing technology, including U.S. Patent No. 9,908,153.  As relevant here, Amazon denied infringement and also asserted, as a defense, that the patent should be declared unenforceable based on inequitable conduct assertedly committed by Freshub’s parent company, Ikan Holdings LLC, in the Patent and Trademark Office—specifically, in its successful petition to revive the earlier abandoned U.S. Patent Application No. 11/301,291, from which all of Freshub’s asserted patents descend.  A jury found that Amazon did not infringe the asserted claims of Freshub’s three asserted patents, while rejecting Amazon’s invalidity challenge—specifically, invalidity for lack of adequate written description.  J.A. 6–14.  The district court later denied Freshub’s post-trial motions challenging the verdict.  Freshub, Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc., 576 F. Supp. 3d 458, 461 (W.D. Tex. 2021) (Post-Trial Opinion).  Between the jury trial and the ruling on those post-trial motions, the court conducted a bench trial, in which no live testimony was presented, and found that Amazon had failed to prove the asserted inequitable conduct by clear and convincing evidence.  Freshub, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 21-cv-511 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 3, 2021), ECF No. 272 (Inequitable Conduct Opinion).

Freshub timely appealed.  It argues that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law that Amazon infringed the ’153 patent, and it seeks a new trial overall because of assertedly prejudicial statements by Amazon at trial.  Amazon timely cross-appealed.  It seeks reversal of the district court’s finding that it failed to prove inequitable conduct.  We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).  We affirm.

Beasley v. Department of Veterans Affairs (Nonprecedential Order)

Upon consideration of the court’s December 19, 2023 order and Aubrey Beasley’s Federal Circuit Form 10, ECF No. 20, 


This case and all transmittals are transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of  Illinois pursuant to the court’s December 19, 2023 order and 28 U.S.C. § 1631.