This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a case involving an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Additionally, the Federal Circuit issued four nonprecedential opinions in patent cases, with three of these cases involving the same parties. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Mouton-Miller v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Precedential)
Deborah Mouton-Miller was promoted from her supervisory position at the United States Postal Service to a different supervisory position at the Department of Homeland Security, subject to a one-year probationary period. After less than a year, Homeland Security informed Ms. Mouton-Miller that her performance had been unsatisfactory and that she was being reassigned from a supervisory to a nonsupervisory role. Ms. Mouton-Miller appealed that decision to the Merit Systems Protection Board, which dismissed Ms. Mouton-Miller’s appeal, determining that it lacked jurisdiction to review the agency’s action because the challenged agency action was excluded from the Board’s jurisdiction by 5 U.S.C. § 7512(C). See Mouton-Miller v. Dep’t of Homeland Security, No. AT-0752-19- 0643-I-1, 2019 WL 4419912 (M.S.P.B. Sept. 12, 2019). We agree with the Board and therefore affirm.
Haag-Streit AG v. Eidolon Optical, LLC (Nonprecedential)
Appellant Haag-Streit AG (“Haag-Streit”) filed a petition to institute an inter partes review (“IPR”) of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,547,394 B2 (“the ’394 patent”). The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) instituted review and ultimately issued a final written decision finding that Haag-Streit failed to prove that the challenged claims were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Haag-Streit AG v. Eidolon Optical, LLC, No. IPR2018-01311, 2019 Pat. App. LEXIS 13545 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2019) (“Board Decision”). Haag-Streit appeals the Board’s final written decision, challenging the Board’s assessment of the evidence. For the reasons explained below, we affirm.
Hytera Communications Co. Ltd. v. Motorola Solutions, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Hytera Communications Co. Ltd. appeals from the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding that claims 1, 4–9, 12–15, and 18–19 of U.S. Patent No. 8,116,284 are not unpatentable. Hytera Commc’ns Corp. Ltd. v. Motorola Sols., Inc., No. IPR2018-00128, 2019 WL 2062285 (P.T.A.B. May 9, 2019) (Decision). For the following reasons, we affirm.
Hytera Communications Co. Ltd. v. Motorola Solutions, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Hytera Communications Co. Ltd. (“Hytera”) appeals from the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) holding that claims 7 and 8 of U.S. Patent 8,279,991 (the “’991 patent”) are not unpatentable. Hytera Commc’ns Co. Ltd. v. Motorola Sols., Inc., No. IPR2017-02183, 2019 WL 2098197 (P.T.A.B. May 13, 2019) (“Decision”). For the following reasons, we affirm.
Hytera Communications Co. Ltd. v. Motorola Solutions, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
On inter partes review (“IPR”) petition filed by Hytera Communications Co. Ltd., the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) held that claims 1, 6, 7, and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 6,591,111 (“the ’111 patent”), owned by Motorola Solutions, Inc., are unpatentable on the ground of obviousness. The Board also held that claims 11, 13, 15, and 16 are patentable.
Hytera appeals the Board’s decision that claims 11, 13, 15, and 16 are patentable, and Motorola conditionally cross-appeals the Board’s decision that claims 1, 6, 7, and 12 are unpatentable. We affirm the Board’s decisions.