Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions

  1. COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR v. SEIRUS INNOVATIVE ACCESSORIES [OPINION - PRECEDENTIAL] (2018-1329, 2018-1331, 2018-1728, 11/13/19) (Lourie, Moore, Stoll) Lourie, J. Affirming judgment of obviousness of utility patent claims related to cold-weather camping gear, reversing summary judgment of infringement of design patent related to heat reflective material, and remanding. “The technology here—coated materials for cold weather and outdoor products—is ‘easily understandable without the need for expert explanatory testimony… Because expert testimony is not required in this case [patent owner’s] critiques of [defendant’s expert’s] testimony do not persuade us that [patent owner] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law… Even if [defendant’s expert] purposefully misrepresented the contents of [a prior art reference, the reference] itself was in the record for the jury to consider. The jury could have easily verified any representations about the reference. Moreover, [patent owner] had ample opportunity to cross-examine [defendant’s expert] on his incorrect understanding of [the reference’s] disclosure. Under these circumstances and given the uncomplicated nature of the evidence, we cannot conclude that [the expert’s] misstatements warrant a new trial.”

  2. KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V. v. GEMALTO M2M GMBH [OPINION - PRECEDENTIAL] (2018-1863, 2018-1864, 2018-1865, 11/15/19) (Dyk, Chen, Stoll) Chen, J. Reversing judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because claims are directed to eligible subject matter. “Rather than being merely directed to the abstract idea of data manipulation, these claims are directed to an improved check data generating device that enables a data transmission error detection system to detect a specific type of error that prior art systems could not.”

  3. GAME AND TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. v. WARGAMING GROUP LIMITED [OPINION - PRECEDENTIAL] (2019-1171, 11/19/19) (Dyk, Plager, Stoll) Stoll, J. Affirming Board decision of obviousness in IPR. Petitioner received a complaint alleging infringement of the patent more than a year before filing its IPR petition. However, the complaint was arguably not properly served. The Court held that, when the issue is presented, the Board “must necessarily determine whether service of a complaint alleging infringement was properly effectuated.” Here, because the patent owner “did not preserve its specific arguments for why service was proper, we cannot conclude that the Board erred in its determination that [petitioner’s] petition was not barred by § 315(b).”

  4. TQ DELTA, LLC v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. [OPINION - PRECEDENTIAL] (2018-1766, 2018-1767, 11/22/19) (Reyna, Hughes, Stoll) Stoll, J. Reversing Board decision of obviousness in IPR. The Board’s conclusion, that a person of ordinary skill would have recognized a disclosure in one reference as a solution to a problem in another reference, was not based on substantial evidence. Hughes, J. dissented without opinion.

  5. PHARMA TECH SOLUTIONS, INC. v. LIFESCAN, INC. [OPINION - PRECEDENTIAL] (2019-1163, 11/22/19) (Moore, Reyna, Stoll) Stoll, J. Affirming summary judgment of noninfringement of patents related to blood glucose monitoring. Prosecution history estoppel precluded infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Because the rationale for an amendment made during prosecution directly related to the accused equivalent, the Court rejected patent owner’s argument that the “tangential relation” exception to the Festo bar applied.

  6. IN RE IPR LICENSING, INC. [OPINION - PRECEDENTIAL] (2018-1805, 11/22/19) (Newman, O’Malley, Taranto) O’Malley, J. Reversing Board decision of obviousness in IPR. The Court previously remanded as to one claim because the evidence on which the Board had relied for its obviousness conclusion failed “to support the conclusion that there would have been a motivation to combine the relevant prior art references.” On remand the Board again found the claim obvious. To support its conclusion that there would have been a motivation to combine the references, the Board relied on a reference that was discussed in the petition only with respect to grounds that were not instituted. The Court found that reliance on such a reference was improper. “The Board’s obviousness finding as to [the claim] relied on a reference that [patent owner] could not anticipate or rebut. It was therefore erroneous.”