This morning, the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential opinions and three nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Three of the opinions come in patent cases. Judge Dyk dissented to one. The other two opinions come in pro se appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.
Hawk Technology Systems, LLC v. Castle Retail, LLC (Nonprecedential)
Hawk Technology Systems, LLC appeals the award of attorney fees by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee to Castle Retail, LLC. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the district court.
Inventist Inc. v. Ninebot Inc. (USA) (Nonprecedential)
Inventist, Inc. and Shane Chen (collectively, “Inventist”) sued Ninebot Inc. (USA) and its affiliates (collectively, “Ninebot”) for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,807,250 (the “’250 patent”). Ninebot appeals a judgment of infringement awarding lost profits and a reasonable royalty on the grounds that Inventist failed to mark its products as required by 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) and that Ninebot’s evidence of noninfringing substitutes was improperly excluded on the issue of lost profits. Inventist cross appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement as to the second generation of Ninebot’s products. We affirm the district court’s summary judgment grant as to the second-generation products, dismiss Ninebot’s appeal of the district court’s denial of its new trial motion related to the marking issue for lack of jurisdiction, and conclude that a new trial is required on the issue of lost profits because the district court erred in excluding evidence of noninfringing substitutes. We accordingly dismiss in part, affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Power2B, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, “Samsung”) appeal the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s Final Written Decisions in the inter partes reviews of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,664,070 and 9,946,369. Samsung challenges the Board’s determination that Samsung presented a new obviousness ground in its reply briefs. According to Samsung, the ground was not new because it was presented in its IPR Petitions. Because the Board did not abuse its discretion in determining that the ground was not in the IPR Petitions and was thus new and forfeited under the Board’s rules, we affirm.
Dyk, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
The issue here is whether the petitioner’s proposed combination of Geva and Keely satisfies claim limitation 1[B] (and related claim limitations 10[B] and 16[B]) in the ’070 patent that teach a “display screen forming a touch sensitive display plane” and similar claim limitations 1[G] and 1[H] (and related claim limitations 11[E] and 11[F]) in the ’369 patent. Samsung contends that a Keely-Geva combination including the planar element of Geva would satisfy the limitations. Without reaching that issue, the majority affirms the Board’s determination that Samsung did not propose a combination that utilized Geva’s planar element. In my view, as the dissenting judge in the ’369 IPR proceedings noted, the Board plainly misread the proposed combination. I respectfully dissent from the majority’s affirmance of the Board.
Akerman v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
Martin Akerman, proceeding pro se, appeals from a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) (1) dismissing his suit as barred under collateral estoppel, (2) denying various motions he filed, and (3) declining to certify an interlocutory order for immediate appellate review of those rulings on his motions. See Akerman v. Dep’t of Army, No. DC-1221-25-0140-W-1, 2024 WL 5162168 (M.S.P.B. Dec. 10, 2024) (SAppx 1–12) (Decision). We affirm.
Chisum v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Ramey Alaine Chisum appeals a November 21, 2024 final decision by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) dismissing her complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. SAppx 3. Because Ms. Chisum’s appeal to this court was untimely, we lack jurisdiction and therefore must dismiss.