Court Opinion

ID: 4523585
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-04-08 16:00:51.069582+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:09:43.942826
License: Public Domain

Case: 19-1638    Document: 51    Page: 1   Filed: 04/08/2020

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                SATCO PRODUCTS, INC.,
                       Appellant

                            v.

    LIGHTING SCIENCE GROUP CORPORATION,
                     Appellee
              ______________________

                       2019-1638
                 ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2017-
 01638.
                  ______________________

                  Decided: April 8, 2020
                 ______________________

    ROBERT STEPHAN RIGG, Vedder Price PC, Chicago, IL,
 argued for appellant. Also represented by JOHN K. BURKE,
 SUDIP MITRA, DANIEL SHULMAN.

    KAYVAN B. NOROOZI, Noroozi PC, Los Angeles, CA, ar-
 gued for appellee.
                  ______________________

       Before DYK, CHEN, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
Case: 19-1638    Document: 51      Page: 2      Filed: 04/08/2020

 2               SATCO PRODS., INC.   v. LIGHTING SCI. GRP. CORP.

 STOLL, Circuit Judge.
     Satco Products, Inc. appeals the determination of the
 Patent Trial and Appeal Board that claims 1, 2, 6, 11, 14,
 15, and 19–23 of U.S. Patent No. 8,201,968 are not antici-
 pated or, in combination with other prior art references,
 rendered obvious by U.S. Patent No. 7,670,021. The issues
 in this case are identical to the issues presented to us in
 Technical Consumer Products Inc. v. Lighting Science
 Group Corp., No. 19-1361 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 8, 2020), issued
 herewith. For the reasons stated in that opinion, and be-
 cause claims 2 and 6 of the ’968 patent are the only remain-
 ing challenged claims in this case, 1 we vacate the Board’s
 decision of no anticipation or obviousness of claims 2 and 6
 and remand for consideration of the parties’ remaining ar-
 guments pertaining to those claims.
                VACATED AND REMANDED
                           COSTS
     Costs to Appellant.

     1   Claims 1, 11, 14, 15, and 19–23 of the ’968 patent
 were determined to be unpatentable in Technical Con-
 sumer Products, Inc. v. Lighting Science Group Corpora-
 tion, No. IPR2017-01287, 2018 WL 5733733 (P.T.A.B.
 Oct. 31, 2018), and Lighting Science Group Corp. did not
 appeal this determination.