This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. Both come in patent infringement cases. Here are the introductions.
Sunco Partners Marketing & Terminal L.P. v. Powder Springs Logistics LLC (Nonprecedential)
This patent infringement case raises issues of eligibility, infringement, and damages and is related to systems and methods of blending butane with gasoline. Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P. sued Magellan Midstream Partners L.P. and Powder Springs Logistics, LLC for patent infringement, which ultimately proceeded to a bifurcated jury trial. A final judgment was entered against Magellan for willfully infringing claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 6,679,302, claims 31 and 32 of U.S. Patent No. 7,032,629, and claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 9,207,686. A final judgment was entered against Powder Springs for willfully infringing claim 3 of the ’686 patent.
Sunoco challenges on appeal several decisions by the district court that occurred pre-trial, during trial, and posttrial related to damages, as well as the district court’s judgment as a matter of law that claims 16 and 17 of the ’302 patent and claims 18 and 22 of the ’629 patent were not infringed. Magellan and Powder Springs cross-appeal the district court’s judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c) that claims 3, 16, and 17 of the ’302 patent, claims 18, 22, 31, and 32 of the ’629 patent, and claim 3 of the ’686 patent are eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as well as the district court’s decision to award supplemental damages to Sunoco. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the district court’s damages decisions, affirm the district court’s JMOL of no infringement, and affirm-in-part and reverse-in-part the district court’s eligibility decision.
Gamevice, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. (Nonprecedential)
Gamevice, Inc. (Gamevice) appeals a decision by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granting summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Nintendo of America, Inc. and Nintendo Co., Ltd. (collectively, Nintendo). Gamevice, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., No. 18-CV-01942-RS, 2023 WL 7194871 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2023) (Summary Judgment Order). The district court determined that the Nintendo Switch console (Switch) did not infringe claims 3, 4, 6, 7, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 9,808,713 (’713 patent) and claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 10,391,393 (’393 patent) because the Switch does not have (1) “confinement structures” that hold a computing device and (2) “apertures” that “secure an instructional input device.” See id. at *7. For the reasons explained below, we affirm and remand.