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 NCH Corporation, No. 22-1166 (Fed. Cir. May 26, 2022)

Vacated & Remanded
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 22-1166
Decided
May 26, 2022
Judge
Per curiam
Document
Order on Motion
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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

for the Federal Circuit

In re: NCH CORPORATION,

Appellant

2022-1166

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 14/681,777.

ON MOTION

Before LOURIE, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

O R D E R

The Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office moves to waive the requirements of Federal Circuit Rule 27(f) and to remand for further proceedings. NCH Corporation opposes remand. NCH appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s affirmance of the examiner’s rejections of claims in NCH’s patent application for lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and/or as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). In its opening appeal brief, NCH argues that the Board failed to address arguments and declaration evidence that NCH provided in its opening brief to the Board

22 IN RE: NCH CORPORATION

to rebut those rejections, which the Board incorrectly deemed as presented for the first time in NCH’s reply brief. The Director now acknowledges that the Board mistakenly believed the arguments to be newly presented in NCH’s reply brief, and “[t]hus, the Board’s analysis is incomplete at this time.” Mot. at 2. The Director therefore moves to remand for the Board to address NCH’s arguments and declaration evidence in the first instance. It is within this court’s discretion to remand to allow the agency to reconsider its previous position. See SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 254 F.3d 1022, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We agree that remand is proper and could preserve party and judicial resources, and therefore grant the motion. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted. The appeal is remanded to the Board to address NCH’s arguments and supporting evidence and to issue a revised decision. On remand, NCH should be given an opportunity to raise arguments and evidence it believes the Board failed to consider properly. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT

May 26, 2022 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: May 26, 2022

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 NCH Corporation, No. 22-1166 (Fed. Cir. May 26, 2022).

Record ID
CAFC-22-1166-20220526
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-22-1166-20220526

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.