This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Western District of Texas. In the opinion, the Federal Circuit explains why it affirms a judgment of invalidity for indefiniteness. The court also released two nonprecedential opinions, one in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and one in a patent case appealed from the Northern District of California. In the case appealed from the Northern District of California, the Federal Circuit affirms a judgment of invalidity for lack of eligibility. The court also released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.
Fintiv, Inc. v. Paypal Holdings, Inc. (Precedential)
Fintiv, Inc. (“Fintiv”) sued PayPal Holdings, Inc. (“PayPal”) for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. Relevant here, Fintiv asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 9,892,386 (“the ’386 patent”), 11,120,413 (“the ’413 patent”), 9,208,488 (“the ’488 patent”), and 10,438,196 (“the ’196 patent”) (collectively, “the asserted patents”). After claim construction, the district court determined certain claim terms in the asserted patents were subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 and held the asserted claims invalid as indefinite. Fintiv, Inc. v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., No. 23-0490, 2023 WL 5423082 (W.D. Tex. July 21, 2023) (“Claim Construction Order”). Fintiv appeals. For the reasons below, we affirm the district court’s indefiniteness determination.
Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Fintiv, Inc. (“Fintiv”) appeals a final written decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding claims 1–3 of U.S. Patent No. 9,892,386 (“the ’386 patent”) unpatentable. Today we issued an opinion in related case Fintiv, Inc. v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., No. 23-2312 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 30, 2025), holding, among others, claims 1–3 of the ’386 patent invalid as indefinite. There is no dispute that our affirmance in the related case compels dismissing as moot this appeal. See Oral Arg. at 0:27–0:40, No. 24-1345, https://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl= 24-1345_03032025.mp3. Accordingly, having affirmed in the related case, we dismiss as moot this appeal.
Longitude Licensing Ltd. v. Google LLC (Nonprecedential)
Longitude Licensing Ltd. (“Longitude”) sued Google LLC (“Google”) in the Northern District of California, alleging infringement of claims of U.S. Patents Nos. 7,668,365 (the “’365 patent”), 8,355,574 (the “’574 patent”), 7,454,056 (the “’056 patent”), and 7,945,109 (the “’109 patent”), all owned by Longitude. The district court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the asserted claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Longitude Licensing Ltd. v. Google, LLC, No. 23-CV03046-VC, 2023 WL 7109896, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2023) (“Dismissal”). We affirm.