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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Sophos Inc. v. Rpost Holdings, Inc., No. 18-1392 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 14, 2019)

Affirmed in Part
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 18-1392
Decided
March 14, 2019
Judge
Per curiam
Document
Nonprecedential Opinion
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

SOPHOS INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RPOST HOLDINGS, INC., RPOST

COMMUNICATIONS LTD.,

Defendants-Appellants

2018-1392

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in No. 1:13-cv-12856-DJC, Judge Denise J. Casper.

Before DYK, WALLACH, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

O R D E R

RPost Holdings, Inc. and RPost Communications Ltd. (collectively, “RPost”) alleged that Sophos Inc. infringed claims 14, 19, 24, 26, 27 and 30 of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,628 (“the ’628 patent”). The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment to Sophos, holding that the asserted claims are invalid because they are anticipated by two prior art references, U.S.2 2 SOPHOS INC. v. RPOST HOLDINGS, INC.

Patent No. 6,609,196 (“Dickinson”) and U.S. Patent No. 7,233,992 (“Muldoon”).

We agree that the asserted claims are anticipated by Dickinson and affirm the invalidity of the asserted claims on that basis. However, the district court’s Memorandum and Order granting summary judgment contained language suggesting that all claims of the ’628 patent are invalid. See J.A. 42 (“[T]he Court concludes that the ’628 patent is invalid.”) The parties agree that the district court’s judgment of invalidity must be limited to the asserted claims.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The judgment of invalidity of claims 14, 19, 24, 26,

27 and 30 of the ’628 patent is affirmed. 2. The case is remanded for the district court to revise

its judgment to clarify that the declaration of invalidity is limited to claims 14, 19, 24, 26, 27, and 30 of the ’628 patent.

FOR THE COURT

March 14, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court

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

Sophos Inc. v. Rpost Holdings, Inc., No. 18-1392 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 14, 2019).

Record ID
CAFC-18-1392-20190314
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-18-1392-20190314

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.