This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and three nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal of a judgment in a case involving claims of design and utility patent infringement. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. One of the orders requires the parties to seek clarification of a final judgment in a patent case, while two dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the first order and links to the dismissals.
Smartrend Manufacturing Group (SMG), Inc. v. Opti-Luxx Inc. (Precedential)
Smartrend Manufacturing Group (SMG), Inc. (“Smartrend”) brought suit against Opti-Luxx Inc. (“Opti-Luxx”) for infringement of two patents: U.S. Design Patent No. D932,930 (the “D930 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 11,348,491 (the “’491 patent”). After trial, the jury found that Opti-Luxx infringed both patents. The district court denied Opti-Luxx’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) and issued a permanent injunction. OptiLuxx appeals.
With respect to the D930 patent, we conclude that Opti-Luxx forfeited its objection to Smartrend’s expert testimony on infringement, but we conclude that the district court erred in its construction of the term “transparency,” and that a new trial is necessary. With respect to the ’491 patent, we conclude that JMOL should have been granted because no reasonable jury could have found infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of infringement with regard to the ’491 patent, vacate the judgment as to the D930 patent, and remand for a new trial on the issue of infringement of the D930 patent. We also vacate the injunction.
Jackson v. Department of Homeland Security (Nonprecedential)
Richard Jackson appeals a Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) decision denying his request for corrective action under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act (VEOA) because his underlying complaint filed with the Department of Labor (DOL) was untimely and not subject to equitable tolling. We affirm.
Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Oath Holdings, Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
This order concerns Case No. 2023-2029, Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Google LLC, and not Case No. 2022-1762, Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Oath Holdings Inc.
* * * *
This court concludes that the record is unclear as to whether the final judgment represents a judgment of invalidity as well as a judgment of noninfringement.