This morning, the Federal Circuit released six nonprecedential opinions and seven nonprecedential orders. Four of the opinions come in patent cases, including two appeals of decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The fifth opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims, while the sixth opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Five of the orders dismiss appeals while two transfer cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders transferring cases and links to the dismissals.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Lionra Technologies Ltd. (“Lionra”) appeals from the parties’ stipulated final judgment of noninfringement. J.A. 1–6. For the following reasons, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
Apple Inc. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC (Nonprecedential)
Apple Inc. appeals from a final written decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which found that Apple failed to prove that the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,472,936 would have been invalid as obvious. Asserting issue preclusion, Apple argues that the challenged claims disclose substantively identical limitations as the claims that the Board found invalid in prior inter partes review proceedings. Apple also challenges the Board’s determination on the basis that the Board made an erroneous claim construction. For the following reasons, we reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand.
In re EcoFactor, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
EcoFactor, Inc. (“EcoFactor”) appeals from the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board” or “PTAB”) sustaining the Examiner’s rejection in an ex parte reexamination of claims 1 through 16 of U.S. Patent No. 8,412,488 (the “’488 Patent”). We affirm.
CellTrust Corp. v. MyRepChat, LLC (Nonprecedential)
CellTrust Corporation (“CellTrust”) appeals the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota’s judgment and its (1) denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) of infringement and validity of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,775,012 (“’012 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 10,778,837 (“’837 patent”); and (2) denial of CellTrust’s motion for a new trial and to alter or amend judgment. CellTrust Corp. v. ionLake, LLC, No. 19- CV-2855 (WMW/DJF), 2023 WL 8448792, at *14 (D. Minn. Dec. 6, 2023) (“Decision”); see also J.A. 6075–83. For the reasons below, we affirm-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand.
Because the parties are familiar with the general background facts of this case, we focus only on the facts relevant to our discussion here. CellTrust is the owner of the ’012 and ’837 patents, which claim systems and methods for tracking electronic communications. See, e.g., ’012 patent col. 35 ll. 54–65, col. 37 l. 37 to col. 38 l. 7; ’837 patent col. 42 l. 55 to col. 43 l. 2, col. 44 ll. 22–46. CellTrust asserts claims 1, 7, 20, and 23 of the ’012 patent and claims 1, 3, 20, and 22 of the ’837 patent. The asserted claims require sending communications from a server or gateway to an electronic discovery system or enterprise information archiving system. See, e.g., ’012 patent col. 35 ll. 54–65, col. 37 l. 37 to col. 38 l. 7; ’837 patent col. 42 l. 55 to col. 43 l. 2, col. 44 ll. 22–46.
CellTrust timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
Frank v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Shelly Frank was a Commander in the U.S. Navy and was on a list for promotion to the rank of Captain. She was removed from the promotion list after the Navy found she had improperly handled a dispute with an enlisted officer. As Commander Frank had not reached the rank of Captain and was no longer on the promotion list, she was required to retire after 28 years of service as an officer. She filed papers with the Navy requesting retirement approximately four months before completing 28 years of qualifying service and, hence, retired with 27 years, 7 months, and 27 days of naval officer service.
Commander Frank filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging she had been involuntarily retired. She sought reinstatement in the Navy, return to the promotion list, correction of Navy records relating to the incident with the enlisted officer, and compensatory damages, including backpay and benefits. The Court of Federal Claims concluded that she failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted and dismissed her complaint. She now appeals. We affirm.
Smith v. Department of Veterans Affairs (Nonprecedential)
Terry Burl Smith, Jr. petitions for review of a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) affirming an initial decision sustaining his removal from employment at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). We affirm.
Roper v. Department of Agriculture (Nonprecedential Order)
Debbra L. Roper filed an appeal at the Merit Systems Protection Board challenging the Department of Agriculture’s decision to remove her from federal service. The Board affirmed the agency’s decision and found that Ms. Roper failed to prove her claim of disability discrimination. In response to this court’s show cause order, the Department of Agriculture urges dismissal or transfer to a district court, and Ms. Roper urges transfer to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. ECF No. 16.
Kamdem-Ouaffo v. Fein, Such, Kahn & Shepard, P.C. (Nonprecedential Order)
Ricky Kamdem-Ouaffo filed suit in the federal district court in New Jersey against various private defendants over garnishment of his bank accounts. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of his complaint. He now appeals the district court’s denial of his motions for post-judgment relief and disqualification. In response to this court’s show cause order, the appellees urge dismissal of the appeal on the ground that it is frivolous. Mr. Kamdem-Ouaffo argues in support of our jurisdiction.