Opinions
on

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions and ten nonprecedential orders. The first opinion affirms a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; the second vacates and remands a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and the third reverses and remands another judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The first order denies petitions for writs of mandamus, while the second transfers an appeal to the Central District of California. All of the other orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and first two orders and links to the other orders.

Zyxel Communications Corp. v. UNM Rainforest Innovations (Nonprecedential)

ZyXEL Communications Corporation (“ZyXEL”) appeals from a final written decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) granting in part patent owner UNM Rainforest Innovations’s (“UNMRI”) Motion to Amend the claims of U.S. Patent 8,565,326 (“the ’326 patent”). Qualcomm Inc. v. UNM Rainforest Innovations, IPR2021-00582, 2022 WL 3364565 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 15, 2022) (“Decision”). The Board granted the motion to add substitute claims 6, 7, 9, and 10, finding them to have written description support and not to have been shown to be unpatentable, but denied the motion to substitute claim 8, which it found to lack written description support. Decision at *22–23. For the following reasons, we affirm.

Netflix, Inc. v. Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. (Nonprecedential)

Netflix, Inc. (“Netflix”) filed two petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,457,722 (“the ’722 patent”), which is owned by Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited (“Avago”). In two final written decisions, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) determined that Netflix had not established any of the claims of the ’722 patent to be unpatentable over the asserted prior art. Netflix, Inc. v. Avago Techs. Int’l Sales Pte. Ltd., IPR 2021-00045, 2022 Pat. App. LEXIS 2294 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 19, 2022), J.A. 1–22 (claims 1–3, 5, 9–11, 13, 17–19, and 21) (“-00045 Decision”); Netflix, Inc. v. Avago Techs. Int’l Sales Pte. Ltd., IPR 2021-00431, 2022 Pat. App. LEXIS 3294 (P.T.A.B. June 23, 2022), J.A. 23–31 (claims 4, 6–8, 12, 14–16, 20 and 22) (“-00431 Decision”). Netflix appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). For the reasons set forth below, we vacate and remand.

Tennant Co. v. Oxygenator Water Technologies, Inc. (Nonprecedential)

Tennant Co. (“Tennant”) appeals from a decision of the Patent and Trial Appeal Board (“Board”) finding that claims 13, 14, and 17–27 of U.S. Patent No. RE45,415E (the “’415 patent”) were not unpatentable as anticipated or obvious. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that the claim limitation requiring nanobubbles was not shown to be inherent in the prior art by Tennant’s testing of the prior art or by establishing that the prior art used the same spacing of the electrodes as the ’415 patent. However, because the Board failed to address Tennant’s argument that the prior art practiced all the claimed parameters of the ’415 patent and thus inherently anticipated the claimed nanobubbles limitation, we reverse and remand.

In re Jean (Nonprecedential Order)

Jackson Jean petitions for writs of mandamus directing the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) to grant his claims for allergic rhinitis, tinnitus, and gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD). He also moves for summary judgment and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We now issue a consolidated decision denying his requests.

Rodgers v. United States (Nonprecedential Order)

Crystal N. Rodgers filed an appeal at the Merit Systems Protection Board challenging her removal from federal service and raising, in relevant part, an affirmative defense of discrimination. The Board’s final decision affirmed. She petitioned this court for review and her filings indicate that she wishes to continue to pursue her discrimination and retaliation claims. ECF No. 2 at 1–3; ECF No. 1-2 at 13. Responding to this court’s show cause order, the United States Postal Service urges dismissal or transfer. Ms. Rodgers responds and appears to argue the merits of the case, including her discrimination claims.

Dismissals