Yesterday evening, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions, two orders, and three Rule 36 judgments. The first nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Central District of California, while the second comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions, links to the Rule 36 judgments, and links to the dismissals.
CAO Lighting, Inc. v. Feit Electric Company, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
CAO Lighting, Inc. (“CAO Lighting”), the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,465,961 (“the ’961 patent”), brought suit against Feit Electric Company, Inc. (“Feit Electric”) for infringement of claim 21 of the ’961 patent. The District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment of non-infringement, and CAO Lighting appeals. Because the judgment of noninfringement is based on an improper construction requiring the recited “first reflective layer” to be an epitaxial layer, and the district court also erred in requiring the first reflective layer and the substrate to be composed of different materials, we vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Davis v. Department of Agriculture (Nonprecedential)
Petitioner Rosetta Davis challenges a final decision from the Merit Systems Protection Board sustaining Ms. Davis’s removal from her position at the Department of Agriculture. Because the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and is otherwise in accordance with law, we affirm
Rule 36 Judgments
- Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.
- Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.
- Stratosaudio, Inc. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.