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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Termax Co., No. 23-1252 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 8, 2023)

Dismissed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 23-1252
Decided
March 8, 2023
Judge
Dyk, J.
Document
Order on Motion
Length
3 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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

for the Federal Circuit

ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS, INC.,

Appellant

v.

TERMAX COMPANY,

Cross-Appellant

2023-1252, 2023-1254

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2021-00724.

ON MOTION

Before DYK, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

O R D E R

Illinois Tool Works, Inc. moves to voluntarily dismiss its appeal, No. 2023-1252, and to dismiss Termax Company’s cross-appeal, No. 2023-1254. Termax opposes dismissal of its cross-appeal. We grant both motions.

2Termax appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s final written decision in this inter partes review, which agreed with Termax that all challenged claims of Illinois Tool Works’ U.S. Patent No. 10,683,882 are unpatentable. We have employed the familiar rule that “the prevailing party in a lower tribunal cannot ordinarily seek relief in the appellate court” to appeals from the Board. SkyHawke Techs., LLC v. Deca Int’l Corp., 828 F.3d 1373, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). We see nothing that warrants departing from that rule here.

In opposing dismissal, Termax contends that the Board erred in its construction of certain claim limitations that have also been incorporated into Illinois Tool Works’ new patent. Termax hopes that a favorable decision on its claim construction arguments here will collaterally estop Illinois Tool Works from asserting those newly issued claims. But in SkyHawke, we rejected a similar attempt to appeal from a Board’s claim construction when the appellant did “not seek to alter the judgment of the Board.” Id. There, as here, Termax “is merely trying to preempt an unfavorable outcome” as to some other potential proceeding regarding Illinois Tool Works’ new patent “that may or may not arise in the future,” and, if such an outcome does arise, Termax may appeal “at that time.” Id. at 1377. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motions are granted, and the appeals are dis-

missed.

3(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT

March 8, 2023 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE (as to Appeal No. 2023-1252 only): March 8, 2023

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

Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Termax Co., No. 23-1252 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 8, 2023).

Record ID
CAFC-23-1252-20230308
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-23-1252-20230308

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.