Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions

1. UNILOC 2017 LLC v. FACEBOOK INC. [OPINION]  (2019-1688, 3/09/2021) (Lourie, Wallach, Chen)  
   Chen, J. The Court affirmed the PTAB’s determination that the petitioners were not estopped and affirmed the PTAB’s finding that the challenged claims were unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. With regard to estoppel, the Court held, as an initial matter, that 35 U.S.C § 314(d)’s “No Appeal” provision does not preclude the Court’s judicial review of the PTAB’s application of 35 U.S.C § 315(e)(1)’s estoppel provision when “the alleged estoppel-triggering event occurred after institution.” The Court then held that substantial evidence supported the PTAB’s determination that LG (one of the petitioners) was not estopped from maintaining its patentability challenge. The Court also held that Facebook (another petitioner) was not estopped, explaining that “Section 315 explicitly limits the estoppel to the claims previously challenged and for those proceedings that resulted in a final written decision.” With regard to obviousness, the Court rejected Uniloc’s claim construction argument for the term “attaches to” and held that under the PTAB’s correct construction, the PTAB’s obviousness determination was supported by substantial evidence.
2. EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE BRANDS v. MUNCHKIN, INC. [OPINION]  (2020-1203, 3/09/2021) (Newman, Moore, Hughes)
   Moore, J. The Court vacated-in-part, reversed-in-part, and remanded a district court’s summary judgment of noninfringement of two patents directed to a diaper pail system. With regard to the first patent, Court held that the district court “erred in construing the term ‘clearance’” by adding a limitation “at odds with many of the disclosed embodiments and [that] is simply not required by the claims.” The Court vacated the judgment of noninfringement for the first patent on that basis and remanded. With regard to the second patent, the Court reversed the district court’s summary judgment of noninfringement on the basis that the district court had incorrectly applied the doctrine of equivalents. The Court explained that “the district court erred in evaluating [a claim] element as a binary choice between a single-component structure and a multi-component structure, rather than evaluating the evidence to determine whether a reasonable juror could find that the accused products perform substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, achieving substantially the same result as the claims.”
3. IN RE: THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES [OPINION]  (2020-1012, 3/11/2021) (Prost, Lourie, Reyna)   
   Reyna, J. The Court affirmed a decision of the PTAB affirming the rejection of patent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Court held that “the rejected claims are drawn to abstract mathematical calculations and statistical modeling, and similar subject matter that is not patent eligible.” The Court explained that the “alleged innovation accomplished in claim 1 is in the mathematical analysis itself, namely, in the receipt of data, executing mathematical calculations, and storing the resulting data. The alleged innovation therefore subsists in ‘the basic tools of scientific and technological work’” that are not patent eligible.
4. DEPUY SYNTHES PRODUCTS, INC. v. VETERINARY ORTHOPEDIC IMPLANT [OPINION]  (2020-1514, 3/12/2021) (Prost, Clevenger, Dyk)  
   Dyk, J. The Court affirmed a decision of a district court unsealing an amended complaint for patent infringement. The Court held that “the district court did not abuse its discretion in performing its obligation to ensure public access to court documents.”
5. MYLAN LABORATORIES LTD. v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA, N.V. [ORDER]  (2021-1071, 3/12/2021) (Newman, Moore, Stoll) 
   Moore, J. The Court dismissed an appeal challenging the denial of institution of an IPR because the Court “lack[s] jurisdiction over appeals from decisions denying institution” of IPRs. The Court held that it could, however, consider the appellant’s mandamus petition because “judicial review is available in extraordinary circumstances by petition for mandamus.” The Court nevertheless also held that “there is no reviewability of the Director’s exercise of his discretion to deny institution except for colorable constitutional claims.” In this appeal, the Court held that “Mylan fails to state a colorable claim for constitutional relief.”