This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. The lone precedential opinion comes in a patent case on appeal from the International Trade Commission. Of the nonprecedential opinions, one comes in a patent case on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the other comes in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The lone nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the order.
US Synthetic Corp. v. International Trade Commission (Precedential)
US Synthetic Corp. (USS) filed a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) alleging that Intervenors, among others, violated 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (section 337) based upon the importation, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain products that infringe five of USS’s patents. Only one of those patents is at issue in this appeal: U.S. Patent No. 10,508,502 (’502 patent). The ’502 patent claims a certain type of composition known as a polycrystalline diamond compact. The Commission instituted an investigation, and in a final initial determination, the administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that claims 1, 2, 11, 15, and 21 of the ’502 patent (asserted claims) were infringed, not invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103 or 112, and that USS satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. Certain Polycrystalline Diamond Compacts & Articles Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1236, 2022 WL 897722, at *53, *90–91, *102 (Mar. 3, 2022) (Initial Determination). The ALJ, however, determined that the asserted claims are patent ineligible because they violate the abstract-idea exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101. Id. at *89–90, *102. The Commission reviewed certain aspects of the final initial determination, and, in relevant part, affirmed the ALJ’s determinations that the asserted claims are patent ineligible under § 101 and that Respondents failed to prove a lack of enablement under § 112. Certain Polycrystalline Diamond Compacts & Articles Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1236, 2022 WL 15792877, at *23, *35 (Oct. 26, 2022) (Commission Decision). Accordingly, only the § 101 ruling prevented a section 337 violation based on infringement of the ’502 patent.
USS appeals the Commission’s patent ineligibility ruling. Intervenors argue in the alternative that the asserted claims are not enabled under § 112. For the following reasons, we reverse the Commission’s conclusion that the asserted composition of matter claims are ineligible under § 101, affirm the Commission’s enablement conclusion, and remand.
Montanez v. Department of Homeland Security (Nonprecedential)
Deliris Montanez filed two individual right of action appeals with the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board), alleging that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) retaliated against her for whistleblowing. During a hearing for the consolidated appeals, the parties informed the administrative judge that they had resolved their dispute through a settlement agreement. In an initial decision, the administrative judge dismissed the appeals after finding that the settlement agreement “appears lawful on its face, the parties freely entered into it, and they understand the terms.” Montanez v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., Nos. DA-1221-20-0330-W-2, DA-1221-20-0421-W-2, 2021 WL 4133814 (M.S.P.B. Sept. 9, 2021); see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.41(c)(2). Ms. Montanez subsequently filed a petition for review with the full Board. The Board rejected Ms. Montanez’s arguments that the settlement agreement was invalid, denied the petition for review, and affirmed the administrative judge’s initial decision, which became the final decision of the Board. Montanez v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., Nos. DA-1221-20-0330-W-2, DA-1221-20-0421- W-2, 2024 WL 1599157 (M.S.P.B. Apr. 11, 2024) (Decision); see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b). Ms. Montanez now petitions this court for review. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). For the reasons explained below, we affirm.
U.S. Well Services, LLC v. Stewart (Nonprecedential)
U.S. Well Services, LLC (USWS) appeals from the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) determining that all claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,526,882 (’882 patent) are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over multiple independent grounds asserted in the inter partes review petition filed by Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (Halliburton). Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. U.S. Well Servs., LLC, No. IPR2021-01238, 2023 WL 1967523 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2023) (Decision). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). On appeal, USWS contests the Board’s findings that the prior art discloses two limitations present in the claims: the claimed variable frequency drive (VFD) that performs certain functions and the claimed switchgear. For the following reasons, we affirm.