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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, No. 22-1253 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 23, 2024)

Vacated & Remanded
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 22-1253
Decided
August 23, 2024
Judge
Per curiam
Document
Order on Motion
Length
3 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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

for the Federal Circuit

LKQ CORPORATION, KEYSTONE AUTOMOTIVE

INDUSTRIES, INC.,

Appellants

v.

GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS LLC,

Appellee

2022-1253

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. PGR2020-00055.

ON MOTION

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, LOURIE, DYK, PROST, REYNA,

TARANTO, CHEN, HUGHES, STOLL, and STARK, Circuit

Judges.*

O R D E R

Before the court is a joint motion by Appellants LKQ Corporation and Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc. (“LKQ”) and Appellee GM Global Technology Operations LLC (“GM”) (collectively, the “Parties”). Dkt. 86. The Parties jointly requested that in light of LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, 102 F.4th 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (“En Banc Decision”), we resolve LKQ’s pending request for rehearing en banc, Dkt. 50 (Mar. 23, 2023), by: (1) vacating Dkt. 45 (Jan. 20, 2023) (“Panel Decision”) as to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s non-obviousness determination in the appealed Final Written Decision, PGR2020-00055, Dkt. 33 (Oct. 8, 2021) (“FWD”); (2) vacating the Board’s non-obviousness determination in the FWD; (3) affirming, consistent with the Panel Decision, the Board’s finding of no anticipation; and (4) remanding to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this court’s En Banc Decision. Dkt. 86 at 1. Upon consideration thereof, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The Parties’ joint motion to vacate in part and remand (Dkt. 86) is granted as follows; (2) The Panel Decision (Dkt. 45) affirming the Board’s FWD is vacated with respect to the panel’s affirmance of the Board’s holding of non-obviousness under the RosenDurling test;

(3) The Board’s finding of no anticipation in the FWD is affirmed;

(4) The Board’s non-obviousness determination in the FWD is vacated;

(5) The case is remanded to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this court’s En Banc Decision; and

3(6) The pending request for rehearing en banc (Dkt. 50) is denied as moot.

FOR THE COURT

Figure on page 3 of the opinion

August 23, 2024 Date

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: August 23, 2024.

Footnotes

  1. * Circuit Judge Newman and Circuit Judge Cunningham did not participate. Circuit Judge Clevenger, who was a member of the original panel, also did not participate.

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

LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, No. 22-1253 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 23, 2024).

Record ID
CAFC-22-1253-20240823
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-22-1253-20240823

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.