This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and five nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Michigan. Both nonprecedential opinions come in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Two of the orders deny petitions, one grants summary affirmance, one transfers an appeal, and one dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and first three orders along with links to the transfer and dismissal.
Versata Software, LLC v. Ford Motor Co. (Precedential)
Versata Software, LLC fka Trilogy Software, Inc.; Versata Development Group, Inc.; and Trilogy, LLC appeal a decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on damages for trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract. For the reasons below, we vacate the district court’s judgment on trade secret damages and remand for a new trial with instructions for the district court to consider two damages models it previously rejected. With respect to the breach of contract damages, we reverse the district court’s judgment and reinstate the jury award. Lastly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Ford’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on liability for trade secret misappropriation.
Pictometry International Corp. v. Roofr Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Pictometry International Corp. owns U.S. Patent No. 9,183,538, which claims, in various forms, a method for measuring roofs using aerial imagery. The method helps contractors estimate roof area, and hence the cost of a roofing project, without the need to measure the roof onsite. The patented method involves estimating roof area based on the roof’s “predominant pitch” and “footprint.”
In 2023, Roofr Inc. successfully petitioned for an inter partes review (IPR) of all claims of the ’538 patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–19, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board held all claims unpatentable for obviousness over Roofr’s proposed prior-art combinations. See Roofr Inc. v. Pictometry International Corp., No. IPR2023-00436, 2024 WL 3379549 (P.T.A.B. July 11, 2024) (Decision). Pictometry appeals, challenging the Board’s understanding of “predominant pitch.” We affirm.
Pictometry International Corp. v. Roofr Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Pictometry International Corp. owns U.S. Patent No. 10,648,800, which claims a process that may be useful as part of a process for measuring a roof using aerial imagery. In the claimed process, a user provides a street address or other location data to a computer, which responds by providing to the user a satellite image of an area that includes the address, with a marker placed somewhere on the image. The user can then move the marker on the image to better correspond to the roof of interest. Once the marker is in the desired location, the user, prompted by the computer, takes steps to confirm that location.
Roofr Inc. successfully petitioned for an inter partes review (IPR) of all claims of the ’800 patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–19, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board held all claims unpatentable for obviousness over combinations of prior-art references. See Roofr Inc. v. Pictometry International Corp., No. IPR2023-00435, 2024 WL 3379556, at *1 (P.T.A.B. July 11, 2024) (Decision). In its decision, the Board concluded that a prior-art reference’s disclosure of a marker-locking feature taught the claimed “user-acceptance,” or confirmation, of the roof’s location. On appeal, Pictometry contests the Board’s finding that the prior art teaches the ’800 patent’s “user-acceptance” limitations. We affirm the Board’s decision.
In re McBride (Nonprecedential Order)
Jacqueline M. McBride petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims alleging an unlawful discontinuation of an award for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (“TDIU”) and failure to adjudicate a higher-level review regarding entitlement to TDIU. A single judge denied the petition. On April 15, 2026, a panel of judges denied reconsideration but made the single-judge decision a decision of the panel. On April 21, 2026, Ms. McBride filed at this court an “Emergency Writ of Mandamus” seeking, inter alia, an “emergency order staying” the April 15, 2026 decision.
In re Ingraham (Nonprecedential Order)
Mark Ingraham files a document entitled “Petition for Writ of Mandamus to Compel Clerk to Issue Summons,” ECF No. 2 at 1, stating the United States Court of Federal Claims “Clerk states defendant was already served . . . . Clerk should either confirm this or issue summons,” id. at 2.
Dreiling v. United States (Nonprecedential Order)
Justin Paul Dreiling brought this suit against the United States seeking a declaration that “[t]he composition of the Judicial Council of the Federal Circuit” is “contrary to law” by not including district court judges and challenging “the ability” of the Council to issue certain orders. ECF No. 7 at 63, 73. The United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Dreiling appeals and files his opening brief. The United States moves to summarily affirm. Mr. Dreiling opposes.