Today, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion vacating and remanding a decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. The court also released three nonprecedential opinions in three patent cases. Finally, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.
Lessors of Abchakan Village, Logar Province, Afghanistan v. Secretary of Defense (Precedential)
Lessors of Abchakan Village, Logar Province, Afghanistan (“the Lessors” or “Appellants”) appeal a decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“Board”) granting the U.S. government summary judgment and denying the Lessors’ appeal. Lessors of Abchakan Vill., Logar Province, Afghanistan, ASBCA No. 61787, 22-1 BCA ¶ 38,234, 2022 WL 17331987 (Oct. 13, 2022) (“Decision”) (J.A. 1–26). For the reasons explained below, we vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Nonprecedential)
In December 2018, Fintiv, Inc. (Fintiv) sued Apple Inc. (Apple) for infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,843,125 (’125 patent). After construing the claim term “widget” and at first denying Apple’s motion for summary judgment, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas changed course and granted summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Apple. Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 21-CV-896, 2023 WL 4237356 (W.D. Tex. June 21, 2023) (Order). Fintiv appeals. For the reasons explained below, we reverse.
BillJCo, LLC v. Apple Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Apple, Inc. (Apple) filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) alleging that claims 1–3, 8, 20–21, 23–27, 32, 44–45, and 47–48 of U.S. Patent No. 8,566,839 (’839 patent) are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on four separate obviousness grounds, each including a common reference, Lutnick. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) instituted IPR and found all challenged claims unpatentable on all asserted grounds. Apple Inc. v. BillJCo LLC, No. IPR2022-00129, 2023 WL 5028724 (P.T.A.B. May 18, 2023) (Decision). The patent owner, BillJCo, LLC (BillJCo), appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). We affirm.
BillJCo, LLC v. Apple Inc. (Nonprecedential)
BillJCo, LLC (“BillJCo”) appeals two final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) determining that certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,639,267 (the “’267 patent”) and 9,088,868 (the “’868 patent”) are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of several grounds asserted in the inter partes review petition filed by Apple, Inc. (“Apple”). BillJCo challenges the Board’s claim construction, findings regarding the content of the prior art, and findings on BillJCo’s evidence of objective indicia of non-obviousness. For the following reasons, we affirm the Board’s decision.