This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, five nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Of the precedential opinions, one comes in a trade case and one comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Of the nonprecedential opinions, two come in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, two come in patent cases appealed from district courts, and one comes in a veterans case. Notably, one of the patent cases includes an opinion by Judge Cunningham concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.
Linyi Chengen Import & Export Co. v. United States (Precedential)
The United States (“government”) and the Coalition for Fair Trade in Hardwood Plywood (“Coalition” and, with the government, “Appellants”) appeal from a final order of the Court of International Trade (“Trade Court”) setting antidumping duties for hardwood-plywood products produced in and imported from the People’s Republic of China (“China”) by appellees Linyi Chengen Import & Export Co., Ltd. (“Chengen”), Richmond International Forest Products LLC (“Richmond International”), Taraca Pacific, Inc. (“Taraca Pacific”), and Zhejiang Dehua TB Import & Export Co., Ltd. (“Dehua TB”) (together, “Appellees”). Appellants raise three issues. First, they challenge the Trade Court’s order requiring Commerce to accept into the administrative record certain documents, not discovered until the verification stage of Commerce’s investigation, and treat the documents as complete and accurate. Second, they contend the Trade Court erred by rejecting Commerce’s intermediate input method to measure one of Chengen’s factors of production. Lastly, the Coalition (but not the government) seeks reversal of Commerce’s exemption (affirmed by the Trade Court) of two non-mandatory respondents, Dehua TB and Jiangyang Wood Industries Co., Ltd. (“Jiangyang Wood”), from the all-others antidumping duty rate. We agree with Appellants on the first two issues and with the Trade Court on the third. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, and remand to the Trade Court for further proceedings.
Federal Express Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc. (Precedential)
Federal Express Corporation appeals two decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board: first, a decision denying its motion to terminate inter partes review proceedings, and second, a decision finding that all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,766,797 are unpatentable as obvious. For the reasons outlined below, we decline to review the challenge to the Board’s decision denying the request to terminate the IPR proceedings, and we vacate the Board’s obviousness determination as to the challenged claims and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Federal Express Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Federal Express Corporation (“FedEx”) owns U.S. Patent No. 9,182,231 (the “’231 patent”), which covers a hierarchical sensor network for monitoring packages throughout the shipping process. In February 2022, Qualcomm Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) petitioned for inter partes review (“IPR”) of the ’231 patent, alleging that claims 1-15 and 26-30 were unpatentable as obvious in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,212,829 (“Lau”), alone or in combination with U.S. Patent App. No. 2007/0002139 (“Benson”). The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) instituted review and determined that Qualcomm had proven that the challenged claims were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. On appeal, FedEx challenges the Board’s determination as to claims 9 and 23-26. FedEx contends that the Board erred in construing the “short range” and “unable to” limitations of claim 26; in failing to address an argument FedEx raised regarding the non-obviousness of claims 9 and 23-25; and in reaching an obviousness determination for claims 9 and 23-25 lacking substantial evidence support. We agree with the Board’s constructions but also conclude that the Board erred in not addressing FedEx’s argument as to claims 9 and 23-25. We affirm the Board’s final written decision as to claim 26 and vacate and remand for further proceedings as to claims 9 and 23-25.
CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judge, concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part.
I agree with the majority that (1) the part of FedEx’s appeal regarding whether Qualcomm was required, under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2), to name Roambee as a real party in interest should be rejected, Maj. Op. at 3 n.1; (2) the Board correctly construed “unable to,” id. at 11–13; (3) the Board failed to address FedEx’s argument that claim 9 and claims 23–25 require the same “power management instruction” to cause a mobile master node to alter both an “operation of the mobile master node” and “an operation of the ID node,” id. at 13–14; and (4) substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Benson’s activation request alters an operation of the mobile master node, id. at 15–16. I write separately because in my view the Board erred by construing a “short range communication path” to mean any communication path, “so long as the ‘longer range communication path’ is, in fact, ‘longer.’” J.A. 41; cf. Maj. Op. at 6–11.
Federal Express Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Federal Express Corporation (“FedEx”) appeals a final written decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in an inter partes review brought by Qualcomm Incorporated (“Qualcomm”). The Board determined that claims 1 through 25 of U.S. Patent No. 7,623,033 (“the ’033 patent”) are unpatentable as obvious. Qualcomm Inc. v. FedEx Corp. Servs., Inc., No. IPR2022-00584, at 102 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 6, 2023) (“Decision”). On appeal, FedEx only challenges the Board’s claim construction and determination as to claim 7. Appellant’s Br. 22–23. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse.
Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Centripetal Networks, LLC (“Centripetal”) appeals the district court’s judgment of noninfringement in favor of Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) as to the asserted claims of three of its patents—U.S. Patent Nos. 9,686,193 (“’193 patent”), 9,203,806 (“’806 patent”), and 9,560,176 (“’176 patent”). These patents relate to filtering packets of data for security threats when they are transferred between computer networks.
The district court held that Cisco’s products do not infringe the ’193 patent because they filter packets by source and destination, which only meets step one of two filtration steps that the asserted claims require. The district court also held that Cisco’s products do not infringe the ’806 patent because the claim term “responsive to” requires but-for causation of “ceas[ing] processing” packets in “respons[e] to” a signal, and Cisco’s products do not perform this step. Finally, the district court held that Cisco’s products do not infringe the ’176 patent because they do not correlate packet ingress and egress records or automatically generate and implement new rules without human intervention as required by the asserted claims. We affirm all three rulings and accordingly affirm the district court’s judgment of noninfringement.
RFC Lenders of Texas, LLC v. Smart Chemical Solutions, LLC (Nonprecedential)
RFC Lenders of Texas, LLC (“RFC”) appeals an order of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas granting Smart Chemical Solutions, LLC’s (“Smart Chemical”) motion to dismiss on the basis that the asserted patent’s claims are ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101. RFC Lenders of Tex., LLC v. Smart Chem. Sols., LLC, 743 F. Supp. 3d 911, 924 (W.D. Tex. 2024). For the following reasons, we affirm.
Trulson v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Frederick Trulson appeals a decision from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) affirming the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) denial of entitlement to special monthly compensation above the rate provided under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(l). Appx. 1–2. We affirm.