This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, three nonprecedential opinions, three Rule 36 judgments, and two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding. The first nonprecedential opinions comes in a patent infringement case appealed from a district court. The second comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims in a takings case. The third comes in an appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are introductions to the opinions and links to the judgments and dismissals.
Implicit, LLC v. Sonos, Inc. (Precedential)
Implicit, LLC (“Implicit”) appeals a final written decision on remand by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in an inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,391,791 (the “’791 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 8,942,252 (the “’252 patent”), holding that certificates of correction of inventorship issued after the final written decisions had issued in the respective IPRs had no impact on the final written decisions. Sonos, Inc. v. Implicit, LLC, IPR2018-00766, IPR2018-00767, 2023 WL 6367720, at *1 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 19, 2023) (“Decision on Remand”). Implicit also appeals the final written decisions in the IPRs of the ’791 patent and the ’252 patent. See also Sonos, Inc. v. Implicit, LLC, IPR2018-00766, 2019 WL 4439131 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 16, 2019) (“’791 Decision”); Sonos, Inc. v. Implicit, LLC, IPR2018-00767, 2019 WL 4419356 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 16, 2019) (“’252 Decision”). For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.
DSS, Inc. v. Nichia Corp. (Nonprecedential)
The judgment is affirmed on the ground that the asserted claims (claims 1–8 and 11 of United States Patent No. 6,879,040) are invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Ligado Networks LLC v. United States (Nonprecedential)
We have before us a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) in this Takings Clause case against the United States based on a radio license issued to Ligado Networks LLC under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151–646. The Claims Court declined to dismiss the case in the respects now before us, and we accepted the government’s request for interlocutory review upon the certification of the Claims Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(d)(2). We now decide only a subset of the issues presented to us. We conclude, in agreement with the Claims Court, that it had jurisdiction and that the takings claim met the authority requirement for such a claim. But we do not decide the key issue of whether the requirement of a property right protected by the Takings Clause has been met here, or the follow-on categorization issue whether a physical taking has been alleged. As to those issues, we conclude that the parties have presented arguments at too high a level of generality and with insufficient focus on the specifics of the statute at issue and of actions taken under it. We vacate the Claims Court’s rulings regarding those issues and remand for the parties to litigate the key issues through an analysis having the focus required for a fully informed decision about whether the government or Ligado is correct.
Suggs v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
John Suggs petitions for review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Rule 36 Judgments
- Wag Acquisition, LLC v. Google LLC
- Crisp v. United States Postal Service
- Wag Acquisition, LLC v. The Walt Disney Co.