This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and five nonprecedential orders. The first precedential opinions affirms a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, while the second affirms a judgment of the Western District of Wisconsin in a patent case. As for the nonprecedential opinions, the first comes in an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the second in an appeal from the International Trade Commission. The five nonprecedential orders were all dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.
Smith v. McDonough (Precedential)
Claimant-Appellant Karen Hicks is the adult daughter of Thomas Smith, a veteran who died during the pendency of his appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Ms. Hicks sought substitution at the Veterans Court on her own behalf or on behalf of Mr. Smith’s estate. The Veterans Court denied the motion to substitute, holding that Ms. Hicks was not entitled to pursue her father’s claim. For the reasons explained below, we affirm.
Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Apple Inc. (Precedential)
Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (“WARF”) appeals two final judgments of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin in Case Nos. 14-cv-062 (“WARF I”) and 15-cv-621 (“WARF II”). Wis. Alumni Rsch. Found. v. Apple, Inc., No. 14-cv-062, No. 15-cv-621, 2022 WL 2080153 (W.D. Wis. May 10, 2022), J.A. 1‒13. With respect to WARF I, the district court denied WARF’s request to pursue an abandoned doctrine-of-equivalents theory and entered judgment in favor of Apple Inc. (“Apple”) of noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,781,752 (“the ’752 patent”). The district court also entered a final judgment in favor of Apple in WARF II, which accused similar, next generation Apple products of infringing the same ’752 patent, finding that action barred by WARF I. For the reasons below, we affirm the district court’s judgment in both WARF I and WARF II.
Koniklijke Philips N.V. v. Quectel Wireless Solutions Co.(Nonprecedential)
Quectel Wireless Solutions Co. Ltd. (Quectel) petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) for inter partes review (IPR) of claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 8,195,216 (’216 patent), owned by Koninklijke Philips N.V. (Philips). The Board determined the challenged claim to be unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Quectel Wireless Sols. Co. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., No. IPR2021-00563, 2022 WL 4280566, at *1 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 13, 2022) (Decision). Philips appeals. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. v. International Trade Commission (Nonprecedential)
Koki Holdings America Ltd. (Koki) appeals the decision of the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) terminating its investigation based on the withdrawal of the complaint by the complainant, Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools Inc. (Kyocera). Because Koki has failed to establish an injury in fact sufficient to confer standing to appeal, we dismiss.