This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, three nonprecedential opinions, two nonprecedential orders, and one Rule 36 summary affirmance. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. The nonprecedential opinions come in two patent cases and one pro se case. Of the nonprecedential orders, one grants an unopposed motion by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to remand a case back to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, while the other similarly grants a motion by the government to remand a case back to the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders and a link to the summary affirmance.
Bearbox LLC v. Lancium LLC (Precedential)
Lancium allegedly stole Austin Storms’ thunder and patented it. This case centers around a conversation over cocktails and dinner at a Bitcoin mining conference, a follow-up email with four attachments, and a subsequent patent. Based on the dinner conversation and email attachments, Mr. Storms asserts that Lancium’s patent must be corrected to name him as an inventor.
BearBox LLC and Mr. Storms (collectively, “BearBox”) appeal the United States District Court for the District of Delaware’s grant of summary judgment to Lancium LLC, Michael T. McNamara, and Dr. Raymond E. Cline, Jr. (collectively, “Lancium”) on BearBox’s Louisiana state law conversion claim, which the district court held to be preempted, as pled, by federal patent law. J.A. 63–91. BearBox also appeals the district court’s exclusion of BearBox’s expert’s supplemental report. BearBox LLC v. Lancium LLC, No. 21-534, 2022 WL 17403466 (D. Del. Nov. 23, 2022) (“Supplemental Report Decision”). Last, BearBox appeals the district court’s denial of BearBox’s claim that Mr. Storms was either a sole or joint inventor of U.S. Patent No. 10,608,433 (the “’433 patent”). BearBox LLC v. Lancium LLC, No. 21-534, 2023 WL 2367390 (D. Del. Mar. 6, 2023) (“Inventorship Decision”). We affirm the district court’s judgment on each issue.
Bearden v. Office of Personnel Management (Nonprecedential)
George E. Bearden has petitioned for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board’s (“MSPB”) final order denying his petition for review and affirming the administrative judge’s (“AJ”) February 28, 2022 initial decision, which had affirmed the Office of Personnel Management’s (“OPM”) reconsideration decision denying Mr. Bearden’s application for disability retirement. Bearden v. OPM, No. DC-844E-21-0215-I-2, 2023 WL 8672542 (M.S.P.B. Dec. 14, 2023) (“Decision”). For the following reasons, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Horizon Global Americas Inc. v. Northern Stamping Co. (Nonprecedential)
Horizon Global Americas Inc. (“Horizon”) appeals from a final written decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) holding claims 16–20 of U.S. Patent 10,589,585 (“the ’585 patent”) unpatentable as obvious and denying Horizon’s contingent motion to amend. N. Stamping Co., v. Horizon Glob. Ams. Inc., No. IPR2021-04411, (P.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 2023) (“Decision”), J.A. 1–49. For the reasons provided below, we affirm.
In re Cahill (Nonprecedential)
Bret Cahill appeals pro se from a decision of the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”). The Board affirmed the rejection of claims 1–7 of U.S. Patent Application No. 16/536,313 (“Application”) as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1)–(a)(2), and/or obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We affirm.
In re Medtronic, Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
Medtronic, Inc. appeals from a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirming the examiner’s rejection of certain patent application claims as patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) now states that the claims “should not have been rejected as patent ineligible,” ECF No. 12 at 3, and moves unopposed to waive the requirements of Federal Circuit Rule 27(f), to vacate the Board’s decision, and to remand the case “to allow the agency to withdraw the pending patent eligibility rejections,” id.
Crandall v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential Order)
The Merit Systems Protection Board moves unopposed to vacate the final decision and to remand.
The administrative judge dismissed Kenneth Robert Crandall’s petition for enforcement as untimely. The Board now states that the administrative judge “provided incomplete information regarding the applicable timeliness standard” because “he did not explain that . . . the standard for calculating a reasonable filing period runs from the date the petitioner has actual knowledge of the breach.” Mot. at 1, 8 (emphasis in the original). The Board seeks remand for “the administrative judge to provide a full and accurate standard for establishing timeliness, . . . for Mr. Crandall to have an opportunity to submit argument and evidence on this issue,” and for the administrative judge “to issue a new ruling applying the correct standards.” Mot. at 6, 9–10.