Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions

1. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED v. INTEL CORPORATION [OPINION] (2020-1589, 2020-1590, 2020-1591, 2020-1592, 2020-1593, 2020-1594, 7/27/21) (Moore, Reyna, Stoll)

   Moore, J. Vacating final written decisions and remanding because the Board sua sponte broadened construction of a claim term without providing patentee with adequate notice or an opportunity to respond. Both parties’ constructions for “a plurality of carrier aggregated transmit signals” required signals to increase bandwidth. In the final written decisions, the Board omitted the increased bandwidth requirement from its construction. “Even after the hearing, the Board sua sponte issued an order requesting additional briefing on a completely separate claim term with no mention of the agreed-upon increased bandwidth requirement.  Under the facts of this case, the Board’s actions failed to provide notice that it would depart from the agreed-upon increased bandwidth requirement.” Separately, the Court rejected patentee’s argument regarding the corresponding structure for the means-plus-function term “power tracker.” Patentee argued that the corresponding structure for “power tracker” must include an algorithm. “Because power tracker [] is not a general-purpose computer, it does not trigger the algorithm requirement of WMS Gaming.”

   WilmerHale represented the appellee, Intel Corporation.

2. OMNI MEDSCI, INC. v. APPLE INC. [OPINION] (2020-1715, 2020-1716, 8/2/21) (Newman, Linn, Chen)

   Linn, J. Affirming denial of motion to dismiss. Bylaws of the inventor’s employer did not effectuate an assignment and did not negate the inventor’s assignment to the plaintiff. Newman, J. dissented.

3. ANDRA GROUP, LP v. VICTORIA'S SECRET STORES, LLC [OPINION] (2020-2009, 8/3/21) (Reyna, Mayer, Hughes)

   Hughes, J. Affirming dismissal due to improper venue. Patentee sued an entity that operates physical stores (“Stores”) and related Non-Store defendants and argued that venue was proper for the Non-Store Defendants because “Stores employees are agents of the Non-Store Defendants, or, alternatively, because the Non-Store Defendants have ratified Stores locations as their place of business.” The Court disagreed. Plaintiff failed to establish that “Stores employees are agents of [a Non-Store Defendant], because [the Non-Store Defendant] does not have ‘the right to direct or control’ Stores employees, an essential element of an agency relationship.”

4. MONDIS TECHNOLOGY LTD. v. LG ELECTRONICS INC. [OPINION] (2020-1812, 8/3/21) (Dyk, Prost, Hughes)

   Hughes, J. Dismissing interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The district court disposed of post-trial motions in two separate orders: a first order regarding infringement, invalidity and willfulness and a second order regarding damages. The notice of appeal was untimely because it was not filed within thirty days of the first order. “[W]e note that interlocutory appeals are voluntary, and [defendant] is not precluded from challenging the liability determinations of the district court under our § 1295 jurisdiction once the damages determination is completed… For the purposes of this interlocutory appeal, however, [defendant] has missed the statutory deadline and is untimely. We therefore dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.”

5. GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. [OPINION] (2018-1976, 2018-2023, 8/5/21) (Moore, Newman, Prost)

   Per Curiam. Vacating grant of JMOL, reinstating the jury’s verdict of induced infringement and damages award, and remanding. “[Patentee] provided substantial evidence that [defendant’s] partial label instructed the method of use claimed in the [patent] and thus was not a skinny label.” The Court also rejected an argument that a partial label that “may encourage both infringing and noninfringing uses” precludes inducement. Prost, J. dissented.