Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning the court released seven nonprecedential opinions. Four come in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; one comes in response to a petition for review of a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board; one comes in a patent case appealed from the Southern District of California; and one comes in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as a link to the dismissal.
Dowling v. Department of the Air Force (Nonprecedential)
Jonathan Dowling is a non-party witness from a non-selection proceeding before the Merit Systems Protection Board. He challenges a credibility determination reached by an administrative judge and the denial of a motion to intervene in the selection proceeding. Because Mr. Dowling lacks a statutory right to seek judicial review under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1), we dismiss.
Dental Monitoring SAS v. Align Technology, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Dental Monitoring SAS (“Dental Monitoring”) appeals from two inter partes review (“IPR”) final written decisions of the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) determining that claims 1, 2, 4, 7–8, and 13–16 of U.S. Patent 11,049,248 (“the ’248 patent”) and claims 1, 2, and 4–6 of U.S. Patent 11,109,945 (“the ’945 patent”) had been shown to be unpatentable as obvious. Align Tech., Inc. v. Dental Monitoring SAS, IPR2024-00052, 2025 WL 1129266 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 16, 2025), J.A. 52–129 (“’248 patent IPR”); Align Tech., Inc. v. Dental Monitoring SAS, IPR2024-00110, 2025 WL 1129290 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 16, 2025), J.A. 1–51 (“’945 patent IPR”). For the following reasons, we affirm.
Woodway USA, Inc. v. LifeCORE Fitness, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Appellant Woodway USA, Inc. appeals the final judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granting summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Appellee LifeCORE Fitness, Inc. Because the district court’s grant of judgment relied on an overly restrictive claim construction, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.
Keysight Technologies, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLC (Nonprecedential)
Keysight Technologies, Inc. (“Keysight”) appeals from a Final Written Decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) determining that Keysight failed to meet its burden to show that claims 6, 14, 22, 30, and 33 of Centripetal Networks, LLC’s (“Centripetal’s”) U.S. Patent 11,012,474 (“the ’474 patent”) would have been obvious at the time of the effective filing date. J.A. 1–111 (“Decision”). For the following reasons, we affirm.
Maweu v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Brian M. Maweu appeals decisions of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and returning unfiled his defective motion for leave to amend his complaint. Because Mr. Maweu has not shown that the trial court erred in its dismissal or abused its discretion in returning his motion unfiled, we affirm.
Apple Inc. v. Zentian Ltd. (Nonprecedential)
Apple Inc. (“Apple”) appeals a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) concluding that claims 1, 2, 4, 6–9, 11, 24, and 29 of U.S. Patent No. 10,839,789 (the ’789 patent) were not shown to be unpatentable. We vacate the Board’s decision and remand.
Slingshot Printing LLC v. Canon U.S.A., Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Slingshot Printing LLC (“Slingshot”) appeals from the May 20, 2024 final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) determining that claims 1–7, 9, 10, 20–22, and 24 of Slingshot’s U.S. Patent No. 7,152,951 (“the ’951 patent” or “the patent”) are unpatentable. Canon U.S.A., Inc. v. Slingshot Printing LLC, No. IPR2022-01541, 2024 WL 2278719 (P.T.A.B. May 20, 2024), J.A. 1–50. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.