Court Opinion

ID: 4296657
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-07-23 16:01:11.713756+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:57:16.341374
License: Public Domain

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

  United States Court of Appeals
      for the Federal Circuit
                ______________________

   DIRTT ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS LTD,
                Appellant

                           v.

                  ALLSTEEL INC.,
                       Appellee
                ______________________

                      2017-1797
                ______________________

    Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2015-
01691.
                 ______________________

                Decided: July 23, 2018
                ______________________

   CHAD EDWARD NYDEGGER, Workman Nydegger, Salt
Lake City, UT, argued for appellant. Also represented by
MICHAEL J. FRODSHAM, DAVID R. TODD.

   R. TREVOR CARTER, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Indi-
anapolis, IN, argued for appellee. Also represented by
NICHOLAS M. ANDERSON, VICTOR P. JONAS, TIMOTHY M.
SULLIVAN, Minneapolis, MN; JOEL SAYRES, Denver, CO.
                ______________________
2          DIRTT ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS v. ALLSTEEL INC.

Before O’MALLEY, CLEVENGER, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge.
    DIRTT Environmental Solutions, Ltd. appeals from a
final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal
Board (“Board”) in an inter-partes review proceeding,
finding that Allsteel Inc. (“Allsteel”) had shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 4–7, 9, 10,
14–20, and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 8,024,901 are unpatent-
able under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Allsteel Inc. v. DIRTT Envtl.
Sols. Ltd., No. IPR2015-01691, 2017 WL 379367 (P.T.A.B.
Jan. 19, 2017). Because the Board’s final written decision
addresses fewer than all claims challenged in Allsteel’s
petition to institute inter-partes review, and the parties
have not waived their objections to the Board’s failure to
address the non-instituted claims, we vacate and remand
to allow the Board to issue a final written decision con-
sistent with SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348
(2018).
                VACATED AND REMANDED
                           COSTS
    No costs.