This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions and one nonprecedential order. Two of the opinions come in patent cases, one appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and one appealed from a district court. The third opinion comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims. The fourth opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The order transfers an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the order.
Guardant Health, Inc. v. University of Washington (Nonprecedential)
Guardant Health Inc. appeals the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding claims 1–30 of the University of Washington’s U.S. Patent No. 10,760,127 not unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. On appeal, Guardant challenges the Board’s decision requiring a motivation to combine and a reasonable expectation of success where the elements of amplification followed by sequencing were disclosed together in a single embodiment in a single reference. Guardant also asserts that substantial evidence does not support the Board’s findings of no motivation to combine or reasonable expectation of success. We determine that the Board erred by requiring Guardant to show that a skilled artisan would have had a motivation to combine the steps of amplification followed by sequencing and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in performing the amplification and sequencing steps because the prior art reference expressly discloses performing those steps in sequence and the Petition did not rely on modifying these two steps to arrive at the claimed invention. Thus, we vacate the Board’s unpatentability determination and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Orange Electronic Co. v. Autel Intelligent Technology Corp. (Nonprecedential)
Orange Electronic Co. Ltd. (“Orange”) sued Autel Intelligent Technology Corp., Ltd. (“Autel”) in the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of claims 26 and 27 of U.S. Patent No. 8,031,064 (“’064 patent”). The jury found that both claims were not invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and not directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and that Autel directly infringed the claims. After the trial, Autel moved for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) on obviousness, patent ineligible subject matter, and noninfringement. The district court denied JMOL with respect to obviousness and patent ineligible subject matter. However, the district court granted JMOL as to noninfringement, concluding that the evidence established that Autel did not sell, offer to sell, or import infringing goods into the United States. Orange appeals the district court’s grant of JMOL as to noninfringement, and Autel cross-appeals the district court’s denial of JMOL as to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 103. We reverse as to obviousness and accordingly do not reach the issue of patent eligible subject matter under section 101 or the issue of infringement.
Britt v. United States (Nonprecedential)
James Edward Britt II appeals two orders, one from the District Court for the District of Columbia and one from the Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”), each dismissing claims related to his former employment at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”). For the claims appealed from the Claims Court, we affirm. Because we lack jurisdiction to consider the claims raised in Mr. Britt’s appeal from the district court, we transfer the appeal to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“D.C. Circuit”).
Swearengen v. Department of the Army (Nonprecedential)
Marcus C. Swearengen was removed from his civilian position by the Army (“the Agency”) based on two charges: inappropriate remarks and creating a disruption in the workplace. The Merit Systems Protection Board (the “Board”) reversed as to the first charge, sustained the second charge, and modified Mr. Swearengen’s removal to a demotion. Mr. Swearengen petitions for review. We conclude that the remaining charge of causing a disturbance in the workplace is unsupported by substantial evidence and reverse.