Late the last two days, the Federal Circuit released nonprecedential orders dismissing cases. Additionally, this morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion in a patent case on appeal from the District of Delaware and three nonprecedential opinions. Two of the nonprecedential opinions come in patent cases, while the third comes in a veterans case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.
Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Shibuya Hoppmann Corp. (Precedential)
Steuben Foods, Inc. (Steuben) appeals the United States District Court for the District of Delaware’s entry of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of noninfringement for claim 26 of U.S. Patent No. 6,209,591, claims 19 and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 6,536,188, and claims 3 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 6,702,985. Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Shibuya Hoppmann Corp., 661 F. Supp. 3d 322, 336 (D. Del. 2023) (Decision). Steuben also appeals the district court’s conditional grant of a new trial on infringement, invalidity, and damages. Id. For the following reasons, we reverse the JMOL for the ’591 and ’188 patents, affirm the JMOL for the ’985 patent, reverse the conditional grant of a new trial on noninfringement, and vacate the conditional grant of a new trial on invalidity and damages.
Brown v. Hunter (Nonprecedential)
In 1991, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) denied Thaddeus Brown’s claim for service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In 1992, within the appeal period for that denial, a VA physician diagnosed Mr. Brown with PTSD of “questionable” service connection. After several attempts to reopen his claim, Mr. Brown appealed a 2021 decision by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court), arguing that the Board should have considered whether the 1992 examination constituted “new and material” evidence for his 1991 claim under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(b). The Veterans Court dismissed Mr. Brown’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We now affirm.
Deere & Co. v. AGCO Corp. (Nonprecedential)
Deere & Co. (“Deere”) sued AGCO Corp. and Precision Planting, LLC (collectively, “AGCO”) for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,813,663 (“the ’663 patent”) and 9,699,955 (“the ’955 patent”). At trial, the jury found that AGCO did not infringe Deere’s patents. The district court denied Deere’s post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) on infringement and a new trial on infringement. Deere & Co. v. AGCO Corp., 659 F. Supp. 3d 418 (D. Del. 2023) (“Post-Trial Opinion”). Deere appeals, and we affirm.
Qualcomm Inc. v. Intel Corp. (Nonprecedential)
On remand following this court’s decision in Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 801 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (Intel 2021), a majority of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board panel determined that claims 1–9 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 8,838,949 were unpatentable for obviousness. Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., No. IPR2018-01334, 2023 WL 2588220, at *1 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2023) (Remand Decision). This court’s previous opinion summarizes the dispute, which centers on an issue of claim construction—the meaning of “hardware buffer.” See Intel 2021, at 804–12. On remand from our 2021 decision, the Board majority changed its earlier construction, which excluded “a temporary buffer” from the scope of “hardware buffer” (and on that basis rejected Intel’s unpatentability challenges), to a broader construction, under which a “hardware buffer” is “not limited to a ‘permanent’ buffer.” Remand Decision, at *4, *15. Based on the new construction, the Board held all challenged claims unpatentable. Id. at *1, *30.
Qualcomm challenges the Board’s new construction. It does not dispute that, if the Board’s new construction is correct, the prior art discloses the claimed “hardware buffer.” We now reject Qualcomm’s arguments against the new construction and therefore affirm the Board’s decision.