This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal of a denial of a petition for rulemaking to establish criteria to limit the authority of the Patent and Trademark Office to institute inter partes or post-grant review under the America Invents Act. The nonprecedential opinion comes in an appeal from a series of inter partes review proceedings decided by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.
US Inventor, Inc. v. United States Patent and Trademark Office (Precedential)
US Inventor, Inc. and National Small Business United jointly filed a petition for rulemaking to establish criteria to limit the authority of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to institute inter partes or post-grant review under the America Invents Act. The United States Patent and Trademark Office denied the petition. Appellants filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that the denial violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the America Invents Act. The district court dismissed for lack of standing. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
Stryker Corporation v. OsteoMed LLC (Nonprecedential)
This appeal arises from a series of IPRs challenging four related patents owned by OsteoMed, each of which claims a system for securing bones together across a joint using bone plates. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board found some of the challenged claims patentable and others unpatentable. Stryker challenges holdings of patentability in its appeal; OsteoMed challenges holdings of unpatentability in its cross-appeal. Regarding Stryker’s appeal, we conclude that substantial evidence does not support the Board’s finding that the Slater reference did not anticipate the independent claims, reverse the Board’s finding of anticipation as to the independent claims, and vacate and remand for further proceedings to evaluate whether the dependent claims are similarly anticipated by the cited prior art grounds. Regarding OsteoMed’s cross-appeal, because we agree with the Board’s relevant claim constructions, we affirm.