This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and one nonprecedential opinion. The precedential opinion comes in comes in a patent case addressing inventorship. The nonprecedential comes in another patent case addressing anticipation and obviousness. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Fortress Iron, LP v. Digger Specialties, Inc. (Precedential)
Fortress Iron, LP (“Fortress”) appeals from a decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. Fortress Iron L.P. v. Digger Specialties, Inc., 748 F. Supp. 3d 614, 621 (N.D. Ind. 2024) (“Decision”). The district court granted summary judgment, holding that U.S. Patents 9,790,707 (“the ’707 patent”) and 10,883,290 (“the ’290 patent”) were invalid because they omitted a coinventor. Id. The district court also denied partial summary judgment to correct inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256(b). Id. For the reasons given below, we affirm.
Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Keysight Technologies, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Centripetal Networks, LLC (“Centripetal”) appeals from a final written decision of the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) determining that claims 1–20 of its U.S. Patent 10,284,526 (“the ’526 patent”) are unpatentable as anticipated or obvious in an inter partes review. Keysight Techs., Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLC, No. IPR2022-01525 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 2024) (“Decision”), J.A. 1–66. For the following reasons, we affirm.