This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions and five Rule 36 judgments. Three of the opinions come in appeals from the Patent and Trademark Office involving the same parties involved in inter partes review proceedings. The fourth opinion comes in an appeal from a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.
ST Case1Tech, LLC v. Squires (Nonprecedential)
Until recently, Staton Techiya, LLC, was the owner of U.S. Patent No. 8,111,839, along with its grandchild, No. 9,124,982, both relating to always-on recording systems. In December 2021, Samsung Electronics Co. and its affiliate Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, Samsung) petitioned for institution of three inter partes reviews (IPRs) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–19, and the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) instituted all three requested IPRs—two involving the ’839 patent and one involving the ’982 patent. Relevant here, one of the IPRs for the ’839 patent (IPR2022-00242) involved that patent’s claims 14– 17, which are materially identical to claims 17–20 of the ’982 patent, at issue in the IPR for that patent (IPR2022- 00234). In those two IPRs, the PTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board), based on its construction of the term “analysis,” held the just-identified corresponding sets of four challenged claims unpatentable for obviousness for the same reasons. Samsung Electronics Co. v. Staton Techiya, LLC, IPR2022-00242 at 55–64 (P.T.A.B. June 16, 2023) (addressing the ’839 patent’s claims 14–17), J.A. 55–64; Samsung Electronics Co. v. Staton Techiya, LLC, IPR2022-00234 at 65–71 (P.T.A.B. June 14, 2023) (addressing the ’982 patent’s claims 17–20), No. 23-2294 J.A. 65–71. In the third IPR, the Board held claims 1–4 of the ’839 patent unpatentable on different grounds. Samsung Electronics Co. v. Staton Techiya, LLC, IPR2022-00243 at 3, 57–58 (P.T.A.B. June 20, 2023), J.A. 89, 143–44.
Staton Techiya appealed all three Board decisions, and although it assigned the patents to a related entity, ST Case1Tech, LLC, which was substituted as the appellant, we use “Techiya” to refer to the original and substitute appellant. In the present consolidated appeals Techiya appeals the Board’s decision regarding claims 14– 17 of the ’839 patent and the Board’s decision regarding claims 1–4 of the same patent. Because Techiya makes no argument for error in the latter decision, we affirm that decision without further discussion. In a companion appeal before our panel today, No. 23-2294, Techiya appeals the Board’s decision regarding claims 17–20 of the ’982 patent. Because the issues and arguments in that appeal do not differ from those in the present appeal concerning claims 14–17 of the ’839 patent, our decision here controls in the companion appeal.
Techiya contends that the Board erroneously construed the term “analysis” in a limitation requiring an “audio forensics analysis system” in claims 14–17 of the ’839 patent. It argues that “analysis” means “analysis of a user’s sound exposure.” We reject this claim-construction challenge. We conclude that Techiya has forfeited its present argument by not making it to the Board and, in any event, that the argument is incorrect in light of the intrinsic evidence. We therefore affirm.
ST Case1Tech, LLC v. Squires (Nonprecedential)
This appeal is a companion to ST Case1Tech, LLC v. Squires, Nos. 23-2305 and 23-2306, decided today, in which we affirm the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) that claims 14–17 of U.S. Patent No. 8,111,839 are unpatentable for obviousness. In the present appeal, ST Case1Tech brings a materially identical challenge to the Board’s separate decision holding unpatentable claims 17–20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,124,982. See Samsung Electronics Co. v. Staton Techiya, LLC, IPR2022-00234 at 65–71 (P.T.A.B. June 14, 2023), J.A. 65– 71. The parties’ briefs here present arguments not materially different from those presented in the companion case and cite no portions of the record materially different from the record materials cited in Nos. 23-2305 and 23-2306. Our reasoning in the decision in those two appeals thus applies with equal force here. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Board.
ST Case1Tech, LLC v. Squires (Nonprecedential)
ST Case1Tech, LLC (“Case1Tech”) appeals the final written decision issued by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in an inter partes review (“IPR”) involving U.S. Patent No. 9,609,424 (“’424 patent”). Case1Tech principally argues the Board erred in its construction of “processor” as used in claim 1 of the ’424 patent. The Director of the Patent Office (“Director”) intervened to defend the Board’s judgment. We affirm.
Blevins v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
Peter A. Blevins petitions for review of a Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) final order, which denied the petition for review but modified the basis in the initial decision regarding Mr. Blevins’s failure to non-frivolously allege that his absence was because of a compensable injury. Blevins v. United States Postal Serv., No. NY-0353-20- 0047-I-1, 2024 WL 3791245, at *1 (M.S.P.B. Aug. 12, 2024) (“Final Order”). The Board also affirmed the initial decision dismissing Mr. Blevins’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Id.; Blevins v. United States Postal Serv., No. NY0353-20-0047-I-1, 2020 WL 428661 (M.S.P.B. Jan. 23, 2020) (App’x 15–26) (“Initial Decision”). For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.