This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, one nonprecedential opinion, and two nonprecedential dismissals. One of the precedential opinions addresses an appeal from five final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The other precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a grant of summary judgment of noninfringement in a patent infringement case. The nonprecedential opinion affirms an arbitrator’s decision in a dispute over removal from a role with the United States Marshals Service. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.
Pfizer Inc. v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc. (Precedential Opinion)
Pfizer Inc. appeals from five final written decisions of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) concluding that claims 1–45 of U.S. Patent 9,492,559 (“the ’559 patent”) are unpatentable. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Pfizer Inc., No. IPR2017-02131, 2019 WL 1222935 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2019) (holding claims 1–10, 16–19, and 38–45 unpatentable) (“’131 Decision”), J.A. 1–81; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Pfizer Inc., No. IPR2017-02132, 2019 WL 1220899 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2019) (same) (“’132 Decision”), J.A. 82–160; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Pfizer Inc., No. IPR2017-02136, 2019 WL 1222965 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2019) (holding claims 11–15 and 20–37 unpatentable) (“’136 Decision”), J.A. 161–216; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Pfizer Inc., No. IPR2017-02138, 2019 WL 1220900 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2019) (same) (“’138 Decision”), J.A. 217–71; Sanofi Pasteur Inc. v. Pfizer Inc., No. IPR2018-00187, 2019 WL 2352182 (P.T.A.B. June 3, 2019) (holding claims 1–45 unpatentable) (“Sanofi Decision”), J.A. 272–360. The Board also denied Pfizer’s contingent motions to amend the claims filed in three of the five IPRs, concluding that proposed claims 46–52, which Pfizer proposed to substitute for claims 1–4, 9, 41, and 42, respectively, were not independently patentable. Sanofi Decision at *27–37; ’131 Decision at *24–33; ’132 Decision at *23–32.
For the following reasons, we affirm the Board’s conclusions that claims 1–45 are unpatentable. We further affirm the Board’s denials of Pfizer’s motions to amend by adding proposed claims 46, 47, and 50–52. But we vacate those denials as to proposed claims 48 and 49, and remand to the Board for further consideration of those claims.
Chewy, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp. (Precedential Opinion)
International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) appeals the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement of claims 1, 2, 12, 14, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 7,072,849. IBM also appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment that claims 13, 15, 16, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 7,076,443 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For the following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
Dempsey v. United States Marshals Service (Nonprecedential Opinion)
Robert Jeff Dempsey worked as a Property Management Specialist in the United States Marshals Service (USMS) until USMS, acting under 5 U.S.C. Chapter 43, removed him from that position for unacceptable performance, with the removal effective on September 25, 2020. Mr. Dempsey’s union, the American Federation of Government Employees Local 2272 (the Union), filed a grievance on his behalf challenging the removal. Under 5 U.S.C. § 7121(e)(1) and pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement between the Union and USMS, the parties selected an arbitrator, who ultimately affirmed USMS’s removal decision. See J.A. 1–15. On Mr. Dempsey’s petition for review, we affirm the arbitrator’s decision.