Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions   

1.  GOOGLE LLC v. HAMMOND DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL, INC. [OPINION]  (21-2218, 12/8/2022) (Moore, Chen, and Stoll)

Moore, Chief J. Reversing in part and affirming in part final written decision of Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding that petitioner failed to prove certain challenged claims would have been obvious. Petitioner previously challenged a related patent that shares the same specification and, in that proceeding, the PTAB determined that all challenged claims of that related patent would have been obvious. The principle question was whether the prior PTAB decision had preclusive effect.  Collateral estoppel may apply even if the patent claims use slightly different language to describe substantially the same invention, so long as the differences between the unadjudicated patent claims and adjudicated patent claims do not materially alter the question of invalidity. For one of the challenged claims, the differences between the challenged and previously adjudicated claims did not materially alter the question of patentability because the Board found that the differing limitation was obvious and that finding was not challenged on appeal. For the other challenged claims, petitioner failed to raise a collateral estoppel argument and petitioner failed to meets it burden on appeal to reverse the Board’s determination that petitioner failed to show those claims would have been obvious.

2.   TREEHOUSE AVATAR LLC v. VALVE CORPORATION [OPINION] (2022-1171, 11/30/2022) (Lourie, Reyna, and Stoll)

Reyna, J. Affirming district court decisions granting motion to strike portions of an infringement expert report and granting summary judgment of noninfringement. Here, appellee’s expert report undisputedly applied the plain-and-ordinary meaning of the relevant claim limitation, not the parties’ agreed-upon construction. Grant of a motion to strike expert testimony is not improper when such testimony is based on a claim construction that is materially different from the construction adopted by the parties and the court. In the absence of that expert testimony, summary judgment was proper because appellee had no admissible evidence that the accused products satisfied the relevant claim limitation.

3.   In re: NIMITZ TECHNOLOGIES LLC [OPINION] (2023-103, 12/8/2022) (Lourie, Reyna, and Taranto)

Per Curiam. Denying petition for writ of mandamus seeking to vacate the district court’s order directing petitioner to turn over certain documents for inspection and to order an end to the “judicial investigation of” petitioner. The district court identified four concerns as the basis for its information demand. All were related to potential legal issues in the case, subject to the principle of party presentation, or to aspects of proper practice before the court, over which district courts have a range of authority preserved by the Federal Rules.The district court did not seek information simply in order to serve an interest in public awareness, independent of the adjudicatory and court-functioning interests reflected in the stated concerns.