Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released four nonprecedential opinions and two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Two of the opinions come in appeals of decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board involving the same parties; the other two opinions come in pro se appeals of decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board also involving the same parties. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.
In re Song (Nonprecedential)
Kwangjin Song appeals pro se from a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) affirming an examiner’s final rejection of several claims of patent application No. 18/199,940 as anticipated or obvious over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0043656 to Song et al. (published Feb. 15, 2018) (“Song ’656”) and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0243525 to Song et al. (published Aug. 25, 2016) (“Song ’525”). We affirm.
In re Song (Nonprecedential)
Kwangjin Song appeals pro se from a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) affirming an examiner’s final rejection of several claims of U.S. Patent Application No. 15/707,151 (“patent application”) as anticipated or obvious over prior art. We affirm.
ST Case1Tech, LLC v. Squires (Nonprecedential)
ST Case1Tech, LLC (“ST1”) appeals from a final written decision (“FWD”) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in an inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,270,244 (the “’244 patent”), which generally relates to systems for and methods of automatically adjusting audio levels in user-worn devices in order to improve the user’s situational awareness. In its FWD, the Board found claims 1-4, 6, 13, 14, 17-19, and 25-27 of the ’244 patent invalid as obvious. In making that determination, the Board adopted a claim construction ST1 challenges on appeal. Because we agree with the Board’s construction, we affirm.
ST Case1Tech, LLC v. Squires (Nonprecedential)
Appellant ST Case1Tech, LLC (“ST1”) appeals from a final written decision (“FWD”) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in an inter partes review (“IPR”) of its U.S. Patent No. 9,491,542 (the “’542 patent”), which found claims 1-9 and 11-18 unpatentable as obvious. As to ST1’s request that we vacate the Board’s decision with respect to claims 11 and 12, which the petitioners, Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (together, “Samsung”), did not petition to invalidate, relief is unopposed, and we grant it. In all other respects we affirm the Board.