This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, three nonprecedential opinions, and two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Both of the precedential opinions came in patent cases, where one was appealed from a district court and the other appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Of the nonprecedential opinions, two were appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, while one was appealed from a district court in a false advertising case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissals.
Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Roku, Inc. (Precedential)
Ancora Technologies, Inc. appeals two final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board concluding that various claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 are unpatentable as obvious. Because the Board erred in applying our precedent on nexus to the license evidence offered as objective indicia of nonobviousness, we vacate and remand.
Optis Wireless Technology, LLC v. Apple Inc. (Precedential)
Optis Cellular Technology, LLC, Optis Wireless Technology, LLC, PanOptis Patent Management, LLC, Unwired Planet International, Ltd., and Unwired Planet, LLC (collectively, “Optis”) sued Apple Inc. (“Apple”) for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Relevant here, Optis asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 9,001,774 (“the ’744 patent”), 8,019,332 (“the ’332 patent”), 8,385,284 (“the ’284 patent”), 8,102,833 (“the ’833 patent”), and 8,411,557 (“the ’557 patent”) (collectively, “the asserted patents”). The asserted patents are standard-essential patents (“SEPs”) that cover technology essential to the Long-Term Evolution (“LTE”) standard. Optis contends various Apple iPhones, iPads, and Watches implementing the LTE standard infringe the asserted patents. The jury returned a verdict that Apple infringed certain claims of the asserted patents and awarded $506,200,000 as a reasonable royalty for past sales. Apple moved for a new trial arguing that the jury did not hear evidence regarding Optis’s obligation to license the patents on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (“FRAND”) terms. The district court granted a new trial only on damages as to the amount of a FRAND royalty for the use of the asserted patents. In the subsequent damages retrial, the jury awarded Optis $300,000,000 as a lump sum.
For the reasons below, we vacate both the infringement and second damages judgments and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion, including a new trial on infringement and damages. We dismiss Optis’s cross-appeal to reinstate the original damages verdict and need not reach those arguments. We also reverse the district court’s finding that (1) claims 6 and 7 of the ’332 patent are not directed to an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101; and (2) claim 1 of the ’557 patent does not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. We affirm the district court’s construction of claim 8 of the ’833 patent. Last, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 by admitting into evidence the Apple-Qualcomm settlement agreement and Optis’s damages expert’s testimony concerning that agreement.
Boynton v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Veteran Michael Boynton seeks review of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims’ (the “Veterans Court”) affirmance of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ decision denying him a rating above 70% for his post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) before January 12, 2018, and after June 25, 2020. Because we conclude Mr. Boynton’s appeal constitutes a challenge to the factual matters decided below, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
BPI Sports, LLC v. Thermolife International LLC (Nonprecedential)
The parties cross-appeal a final judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida of false advertising under the Lanham Act and unfair competition under state law, and a sanctions order. As to the appeal, we reverse the judgment and affirm the district court’s sanctions order. We dismiss the cross-appeal as moot.
Crawford v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Garry L. Crawford appeals a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) affirming a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) denying his claim for service connection. For the reasons below, we vacate-in-part, dismiss-in-part, and remand.