This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions and five nonprecedential opinions. The first precedential opinion dismisses an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, while the second affirms a judgment of the Eastern District of Texas in a patent infringement case. Four of the nonprecedential opinions all affirm judgments of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, while the fifth affirms a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims in a government contract case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Ravin v. McDonough (Precedential)
Sean Ravin appeals a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) vacating a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) that denied attorneys’ fees. The Veterans Court remanded to the Board for clarification as to whether all the requirements for a fee award were met. We hold that the Veterans Court’s decision was non-final, and we therefore dismiss the appeal.
Miller Mendel, Inc. v. City of Anna (Precedential)
Miller Mendel, Inc. (“Miller Mendel”) sued the City of Anna, Texas (“City”) for infringement of certain patent claims relating to a software system for managing pre-employment background investigations. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted City’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that the asserted claims1 do not claim patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Miller Mendel, Inc. v. City of Anna, 598 F. Supp. 3d 486, 499 (E.D. Tex. 2022) (“Rule 12(c) Decision”). The district court also denied City’s motion for attorneys’ fees. Miller Mendel, Inc. v. City of Anna, No. 2:21-CV-00445-JRG, 2022 WL 2704790 (E.D. Tex. June 13, 2022) (“Attorneys’ Fees Order”). For the reasons below, we affirm.
In re Advanced Cell Diagnostics, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Advanced Cell Diagnostics, Inc. appeals a decision of the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board sustaining the examiner’s final rejection of certain claims of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/012,394. ACD does not dispute that the prior art combination at issue discloses the limitations of the claims on appeal. Rather, ACD challenges the Board’s motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success findings, as well as the Board’s consideration of two expert declarations. Because we determine that the Board’s findings are supported by substantial evidence and that the Board did not err in its consideration of ACD’s expert declarations, we affirm.
Samsung Electronics Co. v. Neonode Smartphone LLC (Nonprecedential)
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Apple Inc. (collectively, “Samsung”) appeal from the final written decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) concluding that claims 1–6 and 12–17 of U.S. Patent 8,095,879 (“the ’879 patent”) had not been shown to be unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Neonode Smartphone LLC, No. IPR2021-00144 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2022), J.A. 1–55 (“Decision”). For the following reasons, we affirm.
Google LLC v. Neonode Smartphone LLC (Nonprecedential)
Google LLC appeals from the final written decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) concluding that claims 1–7, 9, 12, 13, and 15–17 of U.S. Patent 8,095,879 (“the ’879 patent”) had not been shown to be unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Google LLC v. Neonode Smartphone LLC, No. IPR2021-01041 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2023), J.A. 1–40 (“Decision”). For the following reasons, we affirm.
Shenzhen Buxiang Network Technology Co. v. Sun Pleasure Co. (Nonprecedential)
This is an appeal of the final written decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in IPR2021-00080. Shenzhen Buxiang Network Tech. Co. v. Sun Pleasure Co., No. IPR2021-00080, 2022 WL 1093214 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 11, 2022) (“Decision”). In its decision, the Board found that Shenzhen failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–9 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,353,555 were unpatentable. Decision at *1. For the reasons explained below, we affirm the Board’s decision.
Alisud – Gesac Handling – Servisair 2 Scarl v. United States (Nonprecedential)
The Department of the Navy (Navy) issued requests for proposals for air-terminal and ground-handling services in Naples, Italy and Rota, Spain. After receiving proposals, the Navy awarded both contracts to Louis Berger Aircraft Services, Inc. (Louis Berger). Alisud – Gesac Handling – Servisair 2 Scarl (Algese) filed post-award bid protests challenging the Navy’s decisions. All parties moved for judgment on the administrative record, and the Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) denied Algese’s motion and granted the motions filed by the United States and Louis Berger (collectively, Appellees). Alisud – Gesac Handling – Servisair 2 Scarl v. United States, 161 Fed. Cl. 655, 662 (2022) (Decision). Algese appeals, challenging only the Claims Court’s decision for the Naples contract. For the following reasons, we affirm.