This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal, one Rule 36 judgment, and one errata. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board discussing the standards to establish an injury in fact sufficient to confer standing to appeal. Two of the four nonprecedential opinions come in appeals of decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, including one pro se appeal; another comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; and the fourth comes in an appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissal, Rule 36 judgment, and errata.
ironSource Ltd. v. Digital Turbine, Inc. (Precedential)
ironSource Ltd. (ironSource) appeals a post-grant review (PGR) final written decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) granting Digital Turbine, Inc.’s (DT) Revised Motion to Amend proposing substitute claims 23– 37 in U.S. Patent No. 11,157,256. Because ironSource fails to establish an injury in fact sufficient to confer standing to appeal, we dismiss.
Manufacturing Resources International, Inc. v. Squires (Nonprecedential)
Manufacturing Resources International, Inc. owns U.S. Patent Nos. 10,506,740 and 11,013,142, which describe and claim cooling systems for electronic displays. The patented cooling systems use two separate flow paths—an open loop ambient air flow path and a closed loop gas circulation path—and a common “heat exchanger.” The closed loop path travels across the front of the display and continues to the rear of the display where it may enter the heat exchanger. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. successfully petitioned for inter partes reviews of claims 1–3, 5–9, 11–13, 15–18, and 20 of the ’740 patent and claims 1–15 of the ’142 patent on obviousness grounds. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board construed “heat exchanger” to not require enclosed channels or tubes and found that MRI’s objective evidence of nonobviousness was entitled to little weight. As a result, the Board held all challenged claims unpatentable. MRI appeals, challenging the Board’s construction of “heat exchanger” and its findings that MRI’s objective evidence of nonobviousness was entitled to little weight. We affirm.
In re McFadden (Nonprecedential)
In February 2018, Brian David McFadden filed patent application No. 15/891,363. During prosecution, the examiner rejected claim 14 of Mr. McFadden’s application as (1) anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Mr. McFadden’s previous patent application publication No. 2015/0088879 and (2) directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the examiner’s rejection on both grounds. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Windsor v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Washington Windsor appeals pro se a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) dismissing-in-part and denying-in-part a mandamus petition. We affirm.
Hill v. Department of Defense (Nonprecedential)
Kyen M. Hill petitions for review of the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) that sustained the action of the Department of Defense (“Agency”) that removed Mr. Hill from his position of Police Officer, AD-0083-07 at the Pentagon Force Protection Agency (“PFPA”) in Arlington, Virginia. Hill v. Dep’t of Def., No. DC-0752-18-0361-I-1, (Nov. 16, 2018), J.A. 1–46. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.