This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and three Rule 36 judgments. The precedential opinion comes in an patent infringement case where a defendants challenged the validity of the asserted patent claims due to indefiniteness. While the district court found the claims invalid, the Federal Circuit reversed the judgment. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.
Canatex Completion Solutions, Inc. v. Wellmatics, LLC (Precedential)
Canatex Completion Solutions, Inc. owns U.S. Patent No. 10,794,122, titled “Releasable Connection for a Downhole Tool String,” which claims a device, having two parts, that is used in oil and gas wells. When the device operator intends to leave the lower (further downhole) part of the device in the drilled hole, perhaps because the downhole part has gotten stuck, the operator can disconnect the two parts of the device, leaving the first part in the well while pulling the second part toward or to the surface. Canatex sued Wellmatics, LLC; GR Energy Services, LLC; GR Energy Services Management, LP; GR Energy Services Operating GP, LLC; and GR Wireline, L.P. (collectively, defendants) in September 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, alleging infringement of the ’122 patent.
Defendants challenged the ’122 patent’s validity, arguing that asserted claims 1, 4–13, and 15–19 are indefinite for lack of an antecedent basis for the phrase now at issue, “the connection profile of the second part,” which appears in all the independent claims (1, 7, and 13). Canatex argued that the phrase contains what a relevant artisan would recognize to be an evident error with an evident simple correction, i.e., that a relevant artisan would clearly understand the intended meaning to be “the connection profile of the first part.” The same asserted error appears once in the patent’s Abstract and twice in the patent’s written description. ’122 patent, Abstract; id., col. 1, lines 33– 34; col. 3, lines 31–32. Canatex asked the district court to construe the phrase to reflect the asserted correction of “second” to “first.”
The district court rejected Canatex’s argument and agreed with defendants that claims 1, 7, and 13 are invalid for indefiniteness. See Canatex Completion Solutions, Inc. v. Wellmatics, LLC, No. 4:22-CV-03306, 2023 WL 9645474, at *2–3 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 14, 2023) (Claim Construction Order). The district court ruled that “the error” identified by Canatex “is not evident from the face of the patent and the correction to the claim is not as simple as [Canatex] makes it seem.” Id. at *3. We now reverse, concluding that it is evident that the claim contains an error and that a relevant artisan would recognize that there is only one correction that is reasonable given the intrinsic evidence.
Rough v. Department of Veterans Affairs (Nonprecedential)
Yvonne Rough petitions pro se for review of a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) denying her request for corrective action under the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 (“WPA”), Pub. L. No. 101-12, 103 Stat. 16 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 5 U.S.C.). We affirm.