This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and three nonprecedential opinions. The precedential opinion comes in a patent infringement case and reverses a finding of patent ineligibility. Two of the three nonprecedential opinions come in appeals of decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, while the third nonprecedential opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims in a vaccine case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
REGENXBIO Inc. v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. (Precedential)
REGENXBIO Inc. and The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania (collectively, “REGENXBIO”) filed a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. and Sarepta Therapeutics Three, LLC for infringing claims 1–9, 12, 15, and 18–25 of U.S. Patent No. 10,526,617. Both parties moved for summary judgment of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court granted Sarepta’s motion and held the claims ineligible under § 101 as directed to a natural phenomenon. Because we hold the claims are not directed to a natural phenomenon, we reverse the district court’s decision and remand the case for further proceedings.
VL Collective IP, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC (Nonprecedential)
Appellant VideoLabs Collective IP, LLC (VideoLabs) appeals the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (Board’s) Final Written Decision in No. IPR2022-01086 finding claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 12–13, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 8,605,794 (’794 patent) unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Sonohara. Unified Pats., LLC v. VL Collective IP LLC, No. IPR2022-01086, 2023 WL 8717013, at *20 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2023) (Decision). VideoLabs challenges the Board’s claim construction, the Board’s allowance of a first-time Reply argument, and the Board’s on the merits finding that the claims are unpatentable. Because we agree with the Board’s analysis, we affirm.
Micron Technology, Inc. v. Netlist, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., and Micron Technology Texas, LLC appeal two final written decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which found that appellants failed to prove certain claims would have been unpatentable as obvious. We affirm.
Anklam v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Nonprecedential)
Petitioners Brian and Karen Anklam, as the legal representatives of the estate of their daughter, N.A., appeal a Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) decision affirming a special master’s decision denying them compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. That program was established by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10–300aa-34) (“Vaccine Act”). They also appeal a Claims Court decision denying petitioners’ motion to reopen the record to consider a new medical article. We see no error in the Claims Court’s decision on the merits or its decision not to itself reopen the record. However, in light of the unique circumstances here, we vacate the Claims Court’s judgment and remand for the special master to consider in the first instance whether the record should be reopened.