This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, three nonprecedential opinions, and five nonprecedential orders. Of the precedential opinions, both come in patent cases on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Of the nonprecedential opinions, one comes in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board, one comes in an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the third comes in a takings case on appeal from the Court of Federal Claims. Of the nonprecedential orders, two deny petitions and the other three dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and first two orders and links to the dismissals.
Apple Inc. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC (Precedential)
Apple Inc. (“Apple”), LG Electronics Inc., LG Electronics USA Inc., and Google LLC (“Google”) filed petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,933,431 (“the ’431 patent”). The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) joined the petitions and issued a final written decision, holding claims 1–10, 12, and 14–31 unpatentable and claims 11 and 13 not unpatentable. Apple Inc. v. Gesture Tech. Partners, LLC, Nos. IPR2021-00920, IPR2022-00091, IPR2022-00359, 2022 WL 17364390, at *16 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2022) (“Final Written Decision”). Apple appeals the Board’s holding that claims 11 and 13 were not shown to be unpatentable. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC (“Gesture”) cross-appeals the Board’s holding that claims 1, 7, 12, and 14 are unpatentable and argues that by extension all claims that depend from these claims are also not unpatentable. We affirm the Board’s holding as to all claims.
Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC (Precedential)
Restem, LLC (Restem) appeals from an inter partes review final written decision in which the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) held Restem failed to prove claims 1–15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,803,176 were unpatentable. We affirm.
Acuna v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Nonprecedential)
Trevor McCardle, a former employee of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), passed away on August 4, 2019. In January 2023, the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) determined that he was entitled to back pay for a period in 2014–15 and ordered the EEOC to make the appropriate payment. Three months later, Yolanda Acuna—who was married to Mr. McCardle at the time of his death and had been substituted for him in the Board proceeding—petitioned the Board to enforce its January 2023 decision by directing the EEOC to disburse the payment required by that decision. The Board’s assigned administrative judge found that the EEOC had not made the required payment, McCardle v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, No. SF-0752-15-0230-C-1, 2023 WL 3686899 (May 24, 2023) (2023 Decision); S. Appx. 14–24, and the EEOC then made the payment—though it directed the payment not to Ms. Acuna, but to Mr. McCardle’s former wife, who remained his designated beneficiary.
Ms. Acuna appealed to the full Board, which found the agency now to be in compliance and dismissed the petition for enforcement. McCardle v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, No. SF-0752-15-0230-X-1, 2024 WL 2152118, at *2–3 (M.S.P.B. May 13, 2024) (2024 Decision); S. Appx. 1–13. Ms. Acuna appeals to this court. We affirm.
Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC (Nonprecedential)
Gesture Technology Partners, LLC (“Gesture”) appeals the final written decision of an inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,933,431 (“the ’431 patent”), holding that claims 7–9 and 12 are unpatentable and that claims 10, 11, and 13 were not shown unpatentable. Unified Patents, LLC v. Gesture Tech. Partners, LLC, No. IPR2021-00917, 2022 WL 17096296, at *20 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2022) (“Final Written Decision”). We affirm.
Lopez v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Arthur Lopez appeals a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Because Mr. Lopez’s claims are outside the scope of the Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction, we affirm.
In re Databricks, Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
Databricks, Inc. petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (“EDTX”) to vacate its order denying transfer and to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (“NDCA”). R2 Solutions LLC (“R2”) opposes. Databricks replies. For the following reasons, we deny the petition.
In re Lenovo Group Ltd. (Nonprecedential Order)
In these related petitions, which we consolidate for purposes of resolution, Lenovo Group Limited seeks a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to dismiss the underlying cases for lack of personal jurisdiction. Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc. and Eireog Innovations Ltd. oppose.