Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders, one dismissing an appeal and the other dismissing a petition. This morning, the court released one precedential opinion, three nonprecedential opinions, and two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. All four opinions come in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; three involve the same parties. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as links to the orders.
Netlist, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc. (Precedential)
Netlist, Inc. (“Netlist”) appeals a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) determining all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,949,339 are unpatentable as obvious. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Netlist, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Netlist, Inc. (“Netlist”) appeals two consolidated final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”), which held all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious. See Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., No. IPR2022-00996, 2023 WL 8525632 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 2023) (“’918 Decision”); Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., No. IPR2022-00999, 2023 WL 8446338 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 5, 2023) (“’054 Decision”). For the following reasons, we affirm.
Netlist, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Netlist Inc. (“Netlist”) appeals from two consolidated final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”), which together held unpatentable all claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,787,060 (“’060 patent”) and 9,318,160 (“’160 patent”). We affirm.
Vieth v. Mom Enterprises, LLC (Nonprecedential)
Mrs. Elaine Vieth and her husband, Dr. Reinhold W. Vieth, appeal the September 10, 2024 final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) determining that claims 1 and 3–5 of the Vieths’ U.S. Patent No. 9,066,958 (“the ’958 patent”) are unpatentable. J.A. 1–108. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.