Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and five nonprecedential orders. In the first nonprecedential opinion, the court vacated and remanded a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In the second nonprecedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment in an appeal from the District of Delaware. In two nonprecedential orders, the Federal Circuit denied petitions in cases originating in the Western District of Texas and the Eastern District of Texas. The three additional nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the orders, and links to the dismissals.
Netflix Inc. v. DivX, LLC (Nonprecedential)
DivX, LLC owns U.S. Patent No. 10,225,588, which describes and claims systems and methods for streaming media. Netflix, Inc. and Hulu, LLC (petitioners) successfully sought institution of an inter partes review (IPR) to challenge all claims of the ’588 patent as unpatentable for obviousness. In a final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board concluded that petitioners failed to prove obviousness because they did not demonstrate that a relevant artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the asserted prior art to arrive at the inventions claimed in the ’588 patent. Petitioners appeal. Because the Board legally erred in its obviousness analysis, and the error cannot be regarded as harmless, we vacate and remand.
TRUSTID, Inc. v. Next Caller, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
TRUSTID, Inc. (“TRUSTID”) appeals from a decision of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware denying TRUSTID’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) on a claim of infringement of U.S. Patents 8,238,532 (the “’532 patent”) and 9,001,985 (the “’985 patent”) and granting Next Caller, Inc.’s (“Next Caller’s”) motion for JMOL on a claim of false advertising under the Lanham Act. For the following reasons, we affirm.
In re Asustek Computer, Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
ASUSTeK Computer, Inc. petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas to vacate its scheduling order and stay all proceedings on the merits pending that court’s disposition of ASUSTeK’s motion to transfer. . . . Although ASUSTeK contends that we should stay the discovery deadlines while its transfer request is briefed and decided by the district court, we cannot say that ASUSTeK has shown a clear and undisputable right to entitlement to such relief under the circumstances.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition is denied.
In re Zhejiang Crystal-Optech Company Limited (Nonprecedential Order)
Zhejiang Crystal-Optech Co. Ltd. (“Crystal”) petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to vacate its order denying Crystal’s motion to transfer and transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Viavi Solutions Inc. (“Viavi”) opposes. For the following reasons, we deny the petition.