This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and and two nonprecedential opinions. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In this case, the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal given its finding that the appellant failed to prove standing. The first nonprecedential opinion comes in an appeal from a decision of an arbitrator in a case in which a former employee of the Federal Bureau of Prisons challenged his removal. The second nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Platinum Optics Technology Inc. v. Viavi Solutions Inc. (Precedential)
Platinum Optics Technology Inc. (PTOT) appeals from an inter partes review (IPR) final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding that PTOT failed to prove claims 1–3, 5–8, 10–12, 14, 16–21, and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 9,354,369 are unpatentable. Because PTOT has failed to establish an injury in fact sufficient to confer standing to appeal, we dismiss.
Hagg v. Federal Bureau of Prisons (Nonprecedential)
Charles Hagg, a former employee of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP” or the “Agency”), was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol (“DUI”). He provided a blood sample revealing a high blood alcohol content level and a positive result for tetrahydrocannabinol (“THC”), a compound found in marijuana. Mr. Hagg eventually pled guilty to the DUI charge. He denied using marijuana and was not charged with drug use. After Mr. Hagg informed his supervisors at BOP of the arrest, they directed him to submit a urine sample, which tested positive for THC. Based on the criminal charges against him and the positive urine test, Mr. Hagg’s BOP supervisor decided to remove him from his position with the Agency.
Mr. Hagg appealed to an arbitrator, who found the removal was a proportional response to Mr. Hagg’s conduct. He now appeals to us, raising multiple issues relating to, among other things, the urinalysis and the reasonableness of his removal. We agree with Mr. Hagg that the arbitrator relied on clearly erroneous factual findings and on evidence he obtained through personal research. We resolve certain other issues and leave still others for the arbitrator to consider on remand. We vacate the arbitrator’s decision and remand for a new hearing.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v. K.Mizra LLC (Nonprecedential)
Cisco Systems, Inc. appeals from the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review. The Board determined that Cisco failed to demonstrate the obviousness of claims 1–3, 5–13, and 15–19 of the ’705 patent based solely on a lack of a motivation to combine two prior art references. Because the Board erred in failing to address Cisco’s non-benefits-based motivation to combine arguments and the Board’s finding that Cisco failed to establish a motivation to combine is unsupported by substantial evidence, we vacate and remand.