This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, a nonprecedential opinion, a summary affirmance under Federal Circuit Rule 36, and a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. The first precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Western District of Virginia. The Federal Circuit reversed a jury verdict of no invalidity based on a prior offer for sale in the United States. The second precedential opinion comes in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed a grant of summary judgment that rejected illegal exaction claims. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit affirmed a holding invalidating claims for obviousness. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgment and dismissal.
Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. v. Belvac Production Machinery, Inc. (Precedential)
Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. and related English corporation CarnaudMetalbox Engineering Ltd. (collectively, “Crown”) brought suit against Belvac Production Machinery, Inc. (“Belvac”) for infringement of various claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,308,570 (“the ’570 patent”), 9,968,982 (“the ’982 patent”), and 10,751,784 (“the ’784 patent”) (collectively, “the asserted patents”) relating to necking machines. Belvac raised the affirmative defense of invalidity under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), asserting that a necking machine embodying the invention claimed in the asserted claims was on sale by Crown in this country before the critical date of the patents.
Both parties sought summary judgment on this issue. The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia granted summary judgment to Crown that the three patents were not invalid under the on-sale bar and denied summary judgment to Belvac. After a jury trial, the district court entered a judgment in accordance with the jury verdict that the asserted claims of the patents were not invalid and not infringed. Crown appealed the judgment of noninfringement, and Belvac appealed the judgment of no invalidity. Because the undisputed record shows that the asserted claims of the three patents were the subject of an invalidating offer for sale in the United States, we reverse and remand for a final judgment of invalidity. We do not reach the issue of infringement.
ITServe Alliance, Inc. v. United States (Precedential)
Plaintiffs seek a refund on the H-1B petitions they filed on behalf of their foreign national employees already admitted to and physically present in the United States under another nonimmigrant classification. This appeal concerns whether Plaintiffs are entitled to this refund.
Plaintiffs appeal the decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims granting the Government’s cross-motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs argue that the language “an application for admission as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. [§] 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)) [(“H1B”)], including an application for an extension of such status” excludes applications filed under that same statutory section to change the status of a nonimmigrant who is already in the United States—a so-called change of status petition. Appellants’ Br. 7–8 (emphasis omitted). We disagree and thus affirm the trial court’s decision.
3G Licensing, S.A. v. Honeywell International Inc. (Nonprecedential)
3G Licensing, S.A., (“3G”) appeals from a final written decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) holding claims 34–40 of U.S. Patent 7,215,653 (“the ’653 patent”) unpatentable as obvious. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., v. 3G Licensing S.A., No. IPR2021-01141, 2023 WL 157065 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2023) (“Decision”). For the reasons provided below, we affirm.