This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion affirms a decision of the Patent and Trademark Office not to apply interference estoppel and to invalidate challenged patent claims as obvious. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The nonprecedential order denies a petition for a writ of mandamus. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order.
IGT v. Zynga Inc. (Precedential)
IGT owns expired U.S. Patent No. 7,168,089, titled “Secured Virtual Network in a Gaming Environment,” which issued in January 2007 from an application filed in 2002. In 2003, after the IGT application was published, a predecessor of Zynga Inc. included claims copied from that application in its own patent application, and in 2010 the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO)—the predecessor of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (created by Congress in 2011)—declared an interference between Zynga’s application and IGT’s ’089 patent. (We use “Board” to refer to both boards and “Zynga” to refer to Zynga Inc. and its predecessor.) In the interference, Zynga moved for judgment that the involved claims of the ’089 patent were unpatentable for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. But the Board dismissed that motion as moot when it terminated the interference for a threshold reason—namely, that the claims Zynga had included in its application to trigger the interference were not supported by the written description of its application.
A decade later, in 2021, Zynga petitioned the PTO to institute an inter partes review (IPR) of claims 28–29, 3133, 47–50, 84–86, 90–92, and 99–100 of IGT’s ’089 patent, alleging obviousness based on a combination of prior-art references that it had not relied on in its unpatentability motion in the interference. IGT, opposing institution, argued that interference estoppel under 37 C.F.R. § 41.127(a)(1) barred Zynga from raising its obviousness challenge. The Board, acting as the delegatee of the PTO’s Director, declined to apply interference estoppel and instituted the requested review; and the Director, reviewing that determination, likewise rejected application of interference estoppel. The Board then proceeded with the review and ultimately concluded that all the challenged claims were unpatentable under § 103.
IGT appeals, challenging the PTO’s decision not to apply interference estoppel, see § 41.127(a)(1), and the Board’s conclusion of obviousness. Zynga responds that the decision not to apply interference estoppel was an unreviewable decision to institute review, see 35 U.S.C. § 314(d), and in any event was correct; and Zynga also defends the Board’s obviousness ruling on the merits. Regarding the decision not to apply interference estoppel, we conclude that the decision is within the general rule of unreviewability, and, to the extent the Supreme Court’s decision in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee might allow inquiry into whether the Board engaged in “shenanigans” not in accordance with law, 579 U.S. 261, 275 (2016), there were no shenanigans here—indeed, the PTO had sound reasons for declining to apply interference estoppel. Regarding the final written decision of unpatentability, we reject IGT’s procedural and substantive challenges on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.
Pace v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Carlton A. Pace appeals from a final decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims that affirmed the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ determination that his April 3, 2006 rating decision did not contain clear and unmistakable error, or CUE. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.
Buergofol GmbH v. Omega Liner Company, Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
Buergofol GmbH petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking to vacate the May 20, 2025 discovery-compelling order of the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota and also moves for a stay pending this court’s consideration of the petition. Omega Liner Company, Inc. opposes. Buergofol replies. Omega moves for leave to file a sur-reply and supplemental appendix.