Late yesterday the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released three precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, one nonprecedential order, and one Rule 36 judgment. Two of the precedential opinions come in patent infringement cases, one reviewing an order excluding an expert report on damages and the other reviewing construction of an alleged means-plus-function claim and a judgment of noninfringement. The third precedential opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims in a takings case. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in an ex parte appeal of a rejection of a patent application by the Patent and Trademark Office. The other nonprecedential opinions comes in an appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal. Here are introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgment and dismissals.
Exafer Ltd v. Microsoft Corp. (Precedential)
Exafer Ltd. (Exafer) appeals orders from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (1) excluding Exafer’s expert report on damages, (2) denying Exafer’s motion to reopen fact and expert discovery, and (3) granting Microsoft Corporation’s (Microsoft) motion for summary judgment based on absence of a remedy. For the following reasons, we reverse the district court’s exclusion of Exafer’s damages expert report and vacate the district court’s orders denying Exafer’s motion to reopen fact and expert discovery and granting summary judgment based on absence of a remedy.
Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Kurin, Inc. (Precedential)
Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc. (“Magnolia”) filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, asserting that Kurin, Inc. (“Kurin”) infringed claims 1 and 24 of its U.S. Patent 10,039,483 (“the ’483 patent”) and claims 1, 21, and 48 of its U.S. Patent 9,855,001 (“the ’001 patent”). Based on the district court’s construction that the claims of the ’001 patent contained a meansplus-function term, the parties entered into a stipulation of no infringement as to that patent. See Magnolia Med. Techs., Inc. v. Kurin, Inc., No. 19-cv-00097-CFC-CJB, 2020 WL 2559795 (D. Del. May 20, 2020) (“Markman Decision”); J.A. 17759. The case then proceeded to trial solely on the ’483 patent. A jury found that Kurin infringed the asserted claims of the ’483 patent, but the district court granted Kurin’s post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) that Kurin did not infringe and entered final judgment in favor of Kurin. Magnolia Med. Techs., Inc. v. Kurin, Inc., No. 19-cv-00097-CFC, 2024 WL 2153134 (D. Del. May 14, 2024) (“JMOL Decision”). Because we conclude that the district court did not err in construing the ’001 patent as containing a means-plus-function term and granting JMOL of no infringement as to the ’483 patent, we affirm.
Wyoming Trust Co. v. United States (Precedential)
Wyoming Trust Co.; Nancy Butcher; Kurt Hall; and Hall Atlas, LLC (jointly, Appellants) appeal a United States Court of Federal Claims decision dismissing their takings claim relating to the right to mine certain coal deposits on property located in Wyoming. For the following reasons, we affirm.
In re HBN Shoe, LLC (Nonprecedential)
HBN Shoe, LLC filed with the Patent and Trademark Office a patent application containing claims to a cleated athletic shoe that permits plantarflexion and eversion of the wearer’s foot while the wearer is engaged in weightbearing exercise. A patent examiner at the Office rejected pending claim 1 of the application for obviousness over a combination of prior-art references, and the Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the rejection. See Ex Parte Howard Dananberg & Brian G.R. Hughes, No. 2025- 000103, 2025 WL 570062, at *1 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2025) (Board Decision). On HBN’s appeal, we affirm.
Doe v. Department of Justice (Nonprecedential)
John Doe (“Appellant”) appeals a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) sustaining his removal by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) from his position as a Special Agent in the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”). We affirm.