This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also released nonprecedential opinions in three other patent cases, two in cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and one in a case appealed from the Southern District of Ohio. Finally, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal from a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions, along with a link to the dismissal.
Eye Therapies, LLC v. Slayback Pharma LLC (Precedential)
Appellant Eye Therapies, LLC (“Eye Therapies”) appeals from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) holding all claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,293,742 (“the ’742 patent”) unpatentable. Eye Therapies challenges (1) the Board’s construction of the phrase “consisting essentially of” and (2) the Board’s conclusion that all claims of the ’742 patent would have been obvious over the prior art. For reasons explained below, we reverse the Board’s claim construction of the “consisting essentially of” limitation, vacate its obviousness finding, and remand for further proceedings.
Ball Metal Beverage Container Corporation v. Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. and Crown Cork & Seal USA, Inc. (collectively, Crown) appeal a decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granting summary judgment in favor of Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp. and Rexam Beverage Can Co. (collectively, Ball Metal). The district court determined that certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,935,826 (’826 patent) and 6,848,875 (’875 patent) (collectively, asserted patents) are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 because the claim term “second point”/“transition” is indefinite. For the reasons explained below, we affirm.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Swarm Technology LLC (Nonprecedential)
Juniper Network Inc. (“Juniper”) sought inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 9,852,004 (“’004 patent”) and claims 1-7 and 9-17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,592,275 (“’275 patent”), both of which belong to Swarm Technologies, LLC (“Swarm”). The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) found that Juniper failed to demonstrate that the challenged claims were unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Juniper appeals, arguing that the Board erred in its construction of the claim term “any communication” and in its reading of the prior art. For the following reasons, we affirm the Board’s findings with respect to the ’275 patent. We dismiss as moot Juniper’s appeal with respect to the ’004 patent because, in a companion case decided by this same panel in a separate opinion issued this same day, we have affirmed the Board’s finding in another IPR that all claims of the ’004 patent have been proven unpatentable. See Swarm Tech. LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., Nos. 23-2323, 24-1095 (Fed. Cir. June 30, 2025) (nonprecedential).
Swarm Technology LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
In Final Written Decisions (“FWD”) issued by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in two related inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings, the Board found that Petitioner Amazon.com Inc. (“Amazon”) proved unpatentable some, but not all, claims of two patents owned by Swarm Technology LLC (“Swarm”). Swarm appeals the findings of unpatentability while Amazon cross-appeals the findings that it failed to prove some claims unpatentable. Swarm also appeals the denial of its contingent motion to amend to add substitute claims. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the Board in full.