This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and four nonprecedential orders. The first precedential opinion reverses and remands a grant of summary judgment by the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, while the second precedential opinion affirms a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The first nonprecedential opinion dismisses half of a consolidated appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board while affirming the other half, while the second nonprecedential opinion affirms a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. All of the orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.
United States Capitol Police v. Office of Congressional Workplace Rights (Precedential)
The United States Capitol Police appeals the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights Board of Directors’ decision holding, on summary judgment, that the United States Capitol Police had committed an unfair labor practice. The Fraternal Order of Police, United States Capitol Police Labor Committee intervened. Because there are genuine issues of material fact regarding notice, we reverse the grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.
Sanho Corp. v. Kaijet Technology International Limited, Inc. (Precedential)
Appellant Sanho Corporation (“Sanho”) appeals from a final decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) finding all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,572,429 (“the ’429 patent”) unpatentable as obvious. Each obviousness combination included U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0165053, known as Kuo. Kuo ordinarily would be prior art because its effective filing date predates the effective filing date of the ’429 patent, save for the exception in 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(B). The sole issue on appeal is the applicability of the prior art exception in that provision. It provides that “[a] disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under subsection [102](a)(2) if . . . the subject matter disclosed had, before such subject matter was effectively filed under subsection (a)(2), been publicly disclosed by the inventor.” § 102(b)(2)(B).
Sanho argues that, before Kuo’s effective filing date, the inventor of the ’429 patent “publicly disclosed” the relevant subject matter of Kuo through the private sale of a product (the HyperDrive) allegedly embodying the claimed invention. We understand the Board to have concluded that this private sale does not qualify for the exemption of section 102(b)(2)(B), and Kuo is prior art. We affirm.
Koss Corporation v. Vidal (Nonprecedential)
In this consolidated appeal, Koss Corp. appeals the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decisions in IPR2021-00305 and IPR2021-00381, which found claims 1–4, 9, 10, and 14– 17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,506,325 and claims 1–5 and 14–18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,491,982 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Both patents are assigned to Koss Corp. The two patents, which disclose various types of wireless earphones, have identical written descriptions and figures. For the reasons stated below, we dismiss Koss Corp.’s appeal as to U.S. Patent No. 10,506,325 and affirm the Board’s decision as to U.S. Patent No. 10,491,982.
3G Licensing, S.A. v. Honeywell International Inc. (Nonprecedential)
3G Licensing, S.A. (“3G Licensing”) appeals from a final written decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) finding claims 16–19, 21, 22, 39, 40, and 42 of U.S. Patent 7,551,625 (the “’625 patent”) unpatentable as anticipated or obvious. Cradlepoint, Inc. v. 3G Licensing S.A., IPR2021-00584, 2022 WL 4137702 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2022) (“Decision”). For the reasons provided below, we affirm.