This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Western District of Washington. The opinion describes that the Federal Circuit reversed the judgment and remanded the case due to an incorrect claim construction ruling. The court also released two nonprecedential opinions in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Finally, the court issued three nonprecedential orders. Two of the orders dismiss cases for untimely filings, and one grants an unopposed motion to remand for arbitration. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.
Genuine Enable Technology v. Nintendo Co. (Precedential)
Genuine Enabling Technology LLC sued Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America, Inc. accusing five products of infringing certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,219,730. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington construed the term “input signal,” which appears in all the asserted claims, consistent with the defendants’ proposed construction, and on that basis granted summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of the defendants. Genuine appeals, arguing that the district court erred in construing the limitation by improperly relying on extrinsic evidence and by improperly finding that the inventor, Mr. Nguyen, disclaimed certain claim scope during prosecution. We conclude that the district court erred in its construction of “input signal” and construe the term to mean “a signal having an audio or higher frequency.” Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Microsoft Corp. v. IPA Technologies Inc. (Nonprecedential)
IPA Technologies Inc. owns U.S. Patent Nos. 6,851,115 and 7,069,560, which address computing systems with distributed electronic agents. Microsoft Corporation challenged various claims of the patents in eight inter partes reviews (IPRs) in the Patent and Trademark Office. The Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board held all challenged claims unpatentable for obviousness, except for claims 8– 10, 29–47, 63, and 86–89 of the ’115 patent and claims 10– 11, 28, 50–51, and 53–55 of the ’560 patent.
Microsoft and IPA both appeal. As to Microsoft’s appeals: We affirm the Board’s determination of no proven unpatentability of claims 29–47 of the ’115 patent and claims 50–51 and 53–55 of the ’560 patent; but we reverse certain Board findings regarding claims 8–10, 63, and 86– 89 of the ’115 patent and claims 10–11 and 28 of the ’560 patent, and we remand for any further proceedings that may be necessary and appropriate to address those claims. As to IPA’s appeals (including cross-appeals): We affirm all of the Board’s determinations challenged here by IPA.
Freeman v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“CAVC” or “Veterans Court”) denied the petition for extraordinary relief of veteran Michael S. Freeman, II, in which he asked the court to “revoke the status” of Cheryl L. Mason as a “person of good moral character,” a requirement for membership in the CAVC bar association. Currently, Ms. Mason serves as the Chair of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“BVA”).
* * *
The CAVC’s denial of Mr. Freeman petition is affirmed. His petition for extraordinary relief is denied.
Du v. United States (Nonprecedential Order)
In response to the court’s February 3, 2022 order, the United States urges dismissal of this appeal for lack of jurisdiction as untimely. Appellants’ response opposes dismissal.
* * *
Here, appellants’ submission was filed outside of [the] deadline.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The appeal is dismissed as untimely.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
William v. Department of Veterans Affairs (Nonprecedential Order)
The Department of Veterans Affairs moves unopposed to waive the requirements of Federal Circuit Rule 27(f) and remand to allow the arbitrator to reevaluate his determination concerning the standard of proof and the penalty choice of removal in light of this court’s intervening decisions in Rodriguez v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 8 F.4th 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2021), and Connor v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 8 F.4th 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
Upon consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motion is granted. The case is remanded to the arbitrator for further proceedings consistent with the motion and this order.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
Clervrain v. Lawson (Nonprecedential Order)
Manetirony Clervrain brought this suit in federal district court in Indiana naming government officials as defendants. In December 2020, the court dismissed his complaint as frivolous. In March and June 2021, the district court denied post-judgment motions. The court also imposed a filing injunction. On July 4, 2021, Mr. Clervrain filed an appeal that was transmitted to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. On July 15, 2021, the district court denied Mr. Clervrain’s motion for leave to waive the docketing fee for his appeal. The appeal was eventually dismissed on February 2, 2022, after Mr. Clervrain failed to pay the fee.
While his first appeal was pending, Mr. Clervrain continued to file submissions at the district court. On August 20, 2021, the district court ordered various submissions returned to Mr. Clervrain unfiled. On February 15, 2022, Mr. Clervrain filed a second notice of appeal referencing this court. On the same day, he again moved for leave to waive the docketing fee. On March 1, 2022, the district court denied the motion, concluding that this appeal was not taken in good faith.
* * *
Mr. Clervrain’s attempt to appeal is thus clearly untimely.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) This appeal is dismissed.
(2) Any pending motion is denied as moot.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.