2 opinions in the patent, trademark, design patent, and trade dress categories. Rule 36 affirmances and non-IP dispositions excluded.
In Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd. v. LG Electronics Inc., No. 2025-2063, the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal from two Patent Trial and Appeal Board inter partes review proceedings by stipulation of the parties under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b), with each side bearing its own costs.
Panel: Reyna, Wallach, Hughes
The Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC's summary determination of no infringement and no violation of Section 337 in Sandstrom v. International Trade Commission, involving U.S. Patent Nos. 10,567,474 and 10,848,546. Appellant Sandstrom (who acquired the patents from the original complainant, Optimum Communication Systems, Inc., on the day the Commission issued its final determination) alleged that imported optical network devices infringed the asserted patents because the accused products complied with certain Internet Engineering Task Force standards (specific RFCs) that purportedly read on the patent claims. The ALJ granted the Office of Unfair Import Investigations' motion for summary determination, finding insufficient evidence that the accused products practiced the specific versions of the standards upon which the infringement theory depended.
The court's analysis turned on the evidentiary burden facing a non-movant opposing summary determination in a standards-essentiality case. While infringement may be proven through an accused product's use of an industry standard if the asserted claims are standard-essential, the accused infringer may rebut by showing either that the claims do not cover all implementations of the standard or that the product does not practice the standard. Here, the court found that advertisements generically referencing "NETCONF" and "YANG" support, claim charts comparing standard language to claim language without demonstrating the accused products actually practiced those standards, and an unsworn legal opinion collectively failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the accused products implemented the specific RFC versions on which the infringement allegations rested.