This morning, the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions, one nonprecedential opinion, and one nonprecedential order. Two of the precedential opinions come in patent cases. Notably, in one of these two cases Judge Reyna concurred in part and dissented in part. The third precedential opinion affirms the dismissal of an appeal by the Merit Systems Protection Board for lack of jurisdiction. The nonprecedential opinion comes in an employment case, and the nonprecedential order is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.
NexStep, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (Precedential)
Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge CHEN. NexStep, Inc., (NexStep) appeals from a final judgment that Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, (Comcast) did not infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 8,885,802 (’802 patent) and 8,280,009 (’009 patent). After construing the term “VoIP” in the ’802 patent, the district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement. The ’009 patent proceeded to a jury trial, and the jury found no literal infringement but infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
Following a post-trial motion by Comcast, the district court found NexStep’s proof inadequate and granted judgment as a matter of law of non-infringement of the ’009 patent. On appeal, NexStep argues that the district court erred in its construction of VoIP in the ’802 patent and further erred in granting Comcast’s motion for judgment as a matter of law for the ’009 patent. We reject those challenges and affirm as to both issues. In light of that disposition, we do not reach NexStep’s contentions related to damages or Comcast’s conditional cross-appeal related to validity.
REYNA, Circuit Judge, concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part.
I am pleased to concur in part with the majority opinion. I dissent only to that portion of the majority opinion that affirms the district court’s entry of judgment as a matter of law of non-infringement of the ’009 patent. I dissent for two reasons. First, I believe the jury’s verdict that Comcast infringed the ’009 patent under the doctrine of equivalents is supported by substantial evidence. Second, I believe the majority’s new rule that patentees must always present expert opinion testimony to prove infringement under the doctrine of equivalents is incorrect and contrary to existing precedent. Thus, I would reverse the district court’s decision that disturbed the jury verdict.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Lenovo (Precedential)
Lenovo asked the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina to issue an antisuit injunction prohibiting Ericsson from, among other things, enforcing injunctions that Ericsson had obtained in Colombia and Brazil. The district court denied Lenovo’s request, and Lenovo appeals. We vacate the district court’s denial and remand.
McCoy v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Precedential)
Herbert McCoy, Jr. appeals from a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“the Board”) dismissing his administrative appeal for lack of jurisdiction. McCoy v. Gen. Servs. Admin., No. DC-3330-19-0007-I-1, 2024 WL 913841 (M.S.P.B. Mar. 1, 2024) (“Decision”). For the following reasons, we affirm.
Aguirre v. Department of Defense (Nonprecedential)
Gilbert Aguirre appeals the Merit Systems Protection Board’s final order, which denied Mr. Aguirre’s request for corrective action under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994. Because the Merit Systems Protection Board’s decision was in accordance with the law and supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.