Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and two nonprecedential orders. The first opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Middle District of Florida. Notably, Judge Stark concurred in part and dissented in part from the court’s holding vacating the district court’s judgment and remanding for further proceedings based on errors in claim construction. The second opinion comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. One of the two orders transfers an appeal to the Sixth Circuit, while the other order dismisses an appeal for lack of an appealable final judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the transfer and dismissals.
Acufloor, LLC v. Eventile, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Acufloor, LLC, brought this action against EvenTile, Inc., and FORPAC, LLC, alleging that EvenTile and FORPAC have infringed two of Acufloor’s patents. Following the district court’s claim construction order, the parties stipulated to a judgment of non-infringement. Acufloor now appeals two of the district court’s claim constructions. We modify one of the claim constructions and reject the other. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings.
Stark, Circuit Judge, concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part
I agree with my colleagues that the district court erred in its construction of the “majority of an area” term in the ’274 patent. The correct construction is “the combination of the first notch and the second notch providing the majority of the area of the tile-to-mortar-to-subfloor contact that exists within the bounds of the base.” Maj. at 23. I further agree that we must vacate the judgment of noninfringement and remand for further proceedings. Therefore, I join all parts of the majority opinion other than Part II.A
I disagree, however, with the majority’s determination that the correct construction of “‘edge’ must include the very edge of the tile or, in the district court’s words, the line at which the surface of the tile terminates.” Id. at 15. In my view, the proper construction of “edge” is broader: it allows contact at “the very edge of the tile” but only requires that such contact occur either at the very edge or in the area near that very edge. Thus, in the remand proceedings we are ordering, I would instruct the district court to apply Acufloor’s construction of “edge,” which “includes an area or region where two surfaces of a tile meet.” Open. Br. at 59; see also Appx584 (Acufloor arguing in claim construction briefing the “patents use the term ‘edge’ to refer to a region or area, not a single line”).
Belger v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals denying Terell Belger entitlement to earlier effective dates for benefits on two service-connected claims. We dismiss Mr. Belger’s appeal.