Today, the Federal Circuit released two opinions, one precedential and one nonprecedential, both in patent cases. The precedential opinion, which inspired six amici briefs, addresses obviousness-type double patenting. The nonprecedential opinion involves a consolidated appeal of two inter partes review decisions, which held all challenged claims invalid on grounds of obviousness. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
In re Cellect, LLC (Precedential Opinion)
Cellect, LLC (“Cellect”) appeals from four ex parte reexamination decisions of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) affirming the unpatentability of: (1) claims 22, 42, 58, and 66 of U.S. Patent 6,982,742 (“the ’742 patent”); (2) claims 1, 17, 19, 21, 22, 27, 49, 55, and 61 of U.S. Patent 6,424,369 (“the ’369 patent”); (3) claims 1, 5, 11, 33, 34, 58, and 64 of U.S. Patent 6,452,626 (“the ’626 patent”); and (4) claims 25–29 and 33 of U.S. Patent 7,002,621 (“the ’621 patent”) for obviousness-type double patenting (“ODP”). Ex parte Cellect LLC, Appeal 2021-005302 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 2020), J.A. 27–49; Ex parte Cellect LLC, Appeal 2021-005046 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 2020), J.A. 51–73; Ex parte Cellect LLC, Appeal 2021-005258 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2020), J.A. 76–97; Ex parte Cellect LLC, Appeal 2021- 005303 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2020), J.A. 2–24. For the reasons provided below, we affirm.
Universal Electronics, Inc. v. Roku, Inc. (Nonprecedential Opinion)
This is a consolidated appeal of two inter partes review (IPR) decisions, on petitions filed by Roku, Inc. seeking invalidation of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,821,504 (“’504 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 7,821,505 (“’505 patent”), owned by Universal Electronics, Inc. (“UEI”). The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) held all the challenged claims invalid on the ground of obviousness; viz., claims 1 and 5 of the ’504 patent and claims 5–7, 9, 10, 12, 49, and 51 of the ’505 patent. We affirm the Board’s decisions.