Today, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions. In the first, the court affirmed as to a direct appeal and reversed as to a cross-appeal in a patent case. Notably, Judge Stark dissented in part from the majority’s decision to reverse as to the cross-appeal. In the second nonprecedential opinion, the court affirmed a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In the third nonprecedential opinion, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also released one nonprecedential order granting a motion for summary affirmance and three nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmance and dismissals.
Power2B, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (Nonprecedential)
In these inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) determined that claims 1–20 and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 7,952,570 (the “’570 patent”) and claims 1–19 and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 8,547,364 (the “’364 patent”) were shown to be unpatentable as obvious. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Power2B Inc., IPR2022-00300, Paper No. 38, at 2 (P.T.A.B. June 15, 2023) (“’570 Decision”); Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Power2B Inc., IPR2022-00405, Paper No. 37, at 2 (P.T.A.B. July 14, 2023) (“’364 Decision”). Over the dissent of one administrative patent judge, see ’364 Decision at 75, the Board determined that claim 20 of the ’364 patent was not shown to be unpatentable.
Patent owner Power2B, Inc. (“Power2B”) appeals the Board’s unpatentability determinations, and IPR petitioners Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, “Samsung”) cross-appeal the Board’s determination that claim 20 of the ’364 patent was not shown to be unpatentable. We affirm as to Power2B’s direct appeal and reverse as to Samsung’s cross-appeal.
Stark, Circuit Judge, dissenting-in-part
I join the majority in affirming the Board’s findings of unpatentability of claims 1-20 and 22 of Power2B’s ’570 patent as well as the unpatentability of claims 1-19 and 21 of its ’364 patent. Hence, I agree with my colleagues that we should affirm the Board’s finding that each of those claims is unpatentable.
I dissent, however, from the majority’s decision to reverse the Board’s finding that Samsung failed to prove the unpatentability of claim 20 of the ’364 patent. With respect to that claim, I agree with the Board that Samsung failed to address, in any manner, a limitation unique to claim 20, a failing Samsung candidly acknowledges and one we should not permit to be corrected on appeal. We should, therefore, affirm the Board in full, including on Samsung’s cross-appeal.
Regis v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
In 2008, Michael R. Regis, a veteran of the U.S. Air Force, filed a claim with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), under 38 U.S.C. § 1110, seeking benefits for disability resulting from an assertedly service-connected condition in both knees. In January 2009, the relevant regional office of VA found that a right-knee condition was service-connected and assigned a 10% disability rating based on limited flexion (i.e., knee bending). Mr. Regis challenged that disability rating and underwent additional medical exams. In September 2021, as relevant here, the regional office found that limited extension (i.e., knee straightening) in the right knee was service-connected, but it assigned a 0% rating for that condition.
In January 2022, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, presented with Mr. Regis’s challenge to his initial right-knee-condition rating, denied him a higher rating than the 10% he had been given, finding in particular that he was not entitled to a compensable rating for limitation of extension. J.A. 30–41 (Board opinion). In April 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) affirmed the Board’s denial. Regis v. McDonough, No. 22-0691, 2023 WL 3152277, at *1 (Vet. App. Apr. 28, 2023) (2023 Decision). On Mr. Regis’s appeal to us, we conclude that he did not properly present and preserve in the Veterans Court the argument he makes here, so we affirm the Veterans Court’s decision.
Sferra Fine Linens, LLC v. Sfera Joven S.A. (Nonprecedential)
Sferra Fine Linens, LLC (Opposer) appeals from a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board) decision dismissing its opposition to a trademark application filed by Sfera Joven S.A. (Applicant). Sferra Fine Linens, LLC v. Sfera Joven S.A., No. 91226943, 2023 WL 3561719 (T.T.A.B. May 18, 2023) (Decision). The Board determined that Opposer failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, the existence of a likelihood of confusion between Applicant’s mark and Opposer’s marks. Id. at *9. For the following reasons, we vacate and remand.