This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions and two nonprecedential orders. Two of the nonprecedential opinions come in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, while the third is a design patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Tennessee. The orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.
Epic Games, Inc. v. Ingenioshare, LLC (Nonprecedential)
Appellant Epic Games, Inc. (“Epic”) appeals the final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in IPR2022-00202, IPR2022-00291, IPR2022- 00294, and IPR2022-00295, concerning U.S. Patent Nos. 10,142,810 (the “’810 patent”), 10,708,727 (the “’727 patent”), and 10,492,038 (the “’038 patent”) (collectively, the “challenged patents”). The challenged patents are generally directed to managing electronic communications. The patent claims recite the term “network-based portal,” which the Board construed as residing on the server side of a network for all three patents. Based on this claim construction, the Board determined that Epic had not demonstrated that the prior art relied on in the petition disclosed a network-based portal as required by the challenged patent claims, and thus that Epic had not demonstrated that claims 1–20 of the ’810 patent, claims 1–9 and 15–17 of the ’727 patent, and claims 7–12, 22–24, and 33– 67 of the ’038 patent (the “challenged claims”) were unpatentable as obvious. We affirm.
MyPAQ Holding Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (Nonprecedential)
MyPAQ Holding LTD. (“MyPAQ”) appeals two final written decisions of the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) finding all claims of two of its patents invalid on anticipation and obviousness grounds in inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings. We affirm.
North Star Technology International Ltd. v. Latham Pool Products, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
North Star Technology International Limited and North Star Technology Limited (collectively, North Star) sued Latham Pool Products, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee for alleged infringement of a design patent related to swimming pools. The district court granted Latham’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement, reasoning that Latham’s pool is plainly dissimilar to North Star’s design patent. We find no reversible error in the district court’s determinations and affirm its grant of summary judgment of non-infringement.