This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, six nonprecedential opinions, two nonprecedential orders, and three Rule 36 judgments. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case covering trade secret misappropriation and correction of inventorship. Two of the nonprecedential opinions come in patent cases, one in an appeal from the Court of Federal Claims, two in pro se appeals of decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board, and one in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. One of the orders denies a petition for a writ of mandamus, and the other dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the order denying the petition, along with links to the other orders and the Rule 36 judgments.
Coda Development s.r.o. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.(Precedential)
Coda Development s.r.o., Coda Innovations s.r.o., and Frantisek Hrabal (collectively, “Coda”) appeal a decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio holding that Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company and Robert Benedict (collectively, “Goodyear”) were entitled to judgment as a matter of law of no trade secret misappropriation and denying correction of inventorship of Goodyear’s U.S. Patent No. 8,042,586 (the “’586 patent”). See Coda Dev. s.r.o. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 667 F. Supp. 3d 590, 611 (N.D. Ohio 2023) (“JMOL Decision”); Coda Dev. s.r.o. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 667 F. Supp. 3d 567, 589 (N.D. Ohio 2023) (“Bench Decision”). For the reasons below, we affirm.
Express Mobile, Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Express Mobile, Inc. (“Express Mobile”) appeals three final written decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) determining that all challenged claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,063,755 (“’755 patent”), 9,471,287 (“’287 patent”), and 9,928,044 (“’044 patent”) are unpatentable as obvious. We affirm.
Shopify Inc. v. Express Mobile, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Shopify, Inc. (“Shopify”) brought a declaratory judgment action against Express Mobile, Inc. (“Express Mobile”) in the District of Delaware, seeking a declaration of noninfringement of the claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,063,755 (“’755 patent”), 9,471,287 (“’287 patent”), 6,546,397 (“’397 patent”), and 7,594,168 (“’168 patent”). Express Mobile counterclaimed for infringement of the claims of the asserted patents, as well as for infringement of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,928,044 (“’044 patent”). The district court granted Shopify’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement as to the asserted claims of the ’397 and ’168 patents. After the trial, the district court granted Shopify judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) as to the asserted claims of the ’755, ’287, and ’044 patents. Express Mobile appeals. We dismiss-in-part and affirm-in-part.
Cuccia v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Jack Cuccia appeals a Court of Federal Claims decision dismissing his complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. We affirm.
Nastri v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
Damian Nastri petitions for review of a decision from the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.
Navarro v. Office of Personnel Management (Nonprecedential)
Luisa Navarro petitions for review of a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“the Board”), which denied her petition for review and upheld the United States Office of Personnel Management’s (“OPM’s”) findings regarding its entitlement to collect an overpayment of Navarro’s Federal Employees’ Retirement System (“FERS”) disability retirement annuity benefits. See S.A. at 18–24 (“Final Decision”); S.A. at 1–17 (“Initial Decision). For the following reasons, we affirm.
Perry v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Kevin L. Perry appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of mandamus by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”). For the reasons below, we affirm in part and dismiss in part.
In re Inari Agriculture, Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
Inari Agriculture, Inc. petitioned for post-grant review (“PGR”) of Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.’s plant patent. On September 24, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board declined to institute review, concluding that Inari had failed to sufficiently demonstrate that any of the challenged claims were likely to be found unpatentable. On October 24, 2024, Inari sought Director review of that decision, which was denied on January 10, 2025. Nearly nine months later, Inari filed this petition seeking mandamus review.