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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Schwendimann v. Stahls' Inc., No. 22-1335 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 6, 2023)

Dismissed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 22-1335
Decided
October 6, 2023
Judge
Clevenger, J.
Document
Nonprecedential Opinion
Length
3 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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

for the Federal Circuit

JODI A. SCHWENDIMANN, FKA JODI A. DALVEY,

Appellant

v.

STAHLS’, INC.,

Appellee

2022-1335, 2022-1336, 2022-1429, 2022-1431

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2020-00633, IPR2020-00635, IPR2020-00641, IPR2020-00644.

JODI A. SCHWENDIMANN, FKA JODI A. DALVEY,

Appellant

v.

STAHLS’, INC.,

Appellee

2022-1652

2Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2020-01122.

Before PROST, CLEVENGER, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit

Judges.

O R D E R

Jodi A. Schwendimann owns U.S. Patent Nos. RE41,623 (the “’623 patent”), 7,754,042 (the “’042 patent”), 7,766,475 (the “’475 patent”), and 7,749,581 (the “’581 patent”) (collectively, the “Appealed Patents”). Stahls’, Inc. (“Stahls’”) petitioned for inter partes review of claims 1–5 and 6–14 and 16 of the ’623 patent, claims 16–22 of the ’042 patent, claims 1–16 and 18–19 of the ’475 patent, and claims 1–2, 4–6, 8, and 11–12 of the ’581 patent. In its final written decisions, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) held claims 1–3 and 51 and 6–7, 9–14, and 162 of the ’623 patent, claims 16–22 of the ’042 patent,3 claims 1– 15 and 18 of the ’475 patent,4 and claims 1–2, 4–6, 8, and 11–12 of the ’581 patent5 unpatentable. Ms. Schwendimann appeals the Board’s decisions.

3In a decision issued today in an appeal from separate inter partes reviews on the Appealed Patents, we affirmed the Board’s decisions holding all claims of the ’623 patent, the ’042 patent, and the ’475 patent and claims 1–6, 8–21, and 24–31 of the ’581 patent unpatentable. Schwendimann v. Neenah, Inc., No. 2022-1333, slip op. 22, ––– F.4th –––, ––– (Fed. Cir. Oct. 6, 2023). Thus, these appeals are moot in light of that decision. See Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 91 (2013) (“A case becomes moot—and therefore no longer a Case or Controversy for purposes of Article III—when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” (cleaned up)); see also ArcelorMittal v. AK Steel Corp., 856 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Cisco Sys., Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLC, 928 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Lone Star Silicon Innovations, LLC v. Nanya Tech. Corp., 810 F. App’x 878, 879 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (nonprecedential).

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed as moot in light of our affirmance in Schwendimann v. Neenah, Inc., No. 2022-1333, slip op. 22, ––– F.4th –––, ––– (Fed. Cir. Oct. 6, 2023), which renders unpatentable all of the claims at issue in these appeals.

FOR THE COURT

Figure on page 3 of the opinion

October 6, 2023 Date

Footnotes

  1. 1 Stahls’, Inc. v. Schwendimann, No. IPR2020-00641, 2021 WL 4877584 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 2021).
  2. 2 Stahls’, Inc. v. Schwendimann, No. IPR2020-00633, 2021 WL 4860346 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 2021).
  3. 3 Stahls’, Inc. v. Schwendimann, No. IPR2020-00635, 2021 WL 6300440 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 10, 2021).
  4. 4 Stahls’, Inc. v. Schwendimann, No. IPR2020-01122, 2021 WL 6340143 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2021).
  5. 5 Stahls’, Inc. v. Schwendimann, No. IPR2020-00644, 2021 WL 6297786 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 10, 2021).

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

Schwendimann v. Stahls' Inc., No. 22-1335 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 6, 2023).

Record ID
CAFC-22-1335-20231006
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-22-1335-20231006

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.