Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

In re Apple Inc., No. 14-1002 (Fed. Cir. June 4, 2014)

Granted
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 14-1002
Decided
June 4, 2014
Judge
Newman, J.
Document
Order on Motion
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

IN RE APPLE INC.

2014-1002

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Reexamination No. 90/011,287.

ON MOTION

Before NEWMAN, RADER, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

O R D E R

The parties jointly move to remand to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to reconsider its rejection of claims 13 and 15-31 of U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647 (the ’647 patent) in light of this court’s decision in Apple Inc. v. Motorola Inc., Appeal Nos. 2012-1548, -1549.

In Apple, this court affirmed the district court’s construction of “linking actions to the detected structures” in the ’647 patent. We agree with the parties that the case

22 IN RE APPLE INC.

should be remanded to the Board to reconsider its decision in light of this construction.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion to remand is granted. This appeal is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this order.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk

s30 ISSUED AS A MANDATE: June 4, 2014

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

In re Apple Inc., No. 14-1002 (Fed. Cir. June 4, 2014).

Record ID
CAFC-14-1002-20140604
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-14-1002-20140604

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.