SOPHOS INC. v. RPOST HOLDINGS, INC. [ORDER - NONPRECEDENTIAL] , No. 18-1392 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ SOPHOS INC., Plaintiff-Appellee v. RPOST HOLDINGS, INC., RPOST COMMUNICATIONS LTD., Defendants-Appellants ______________________ 2018-1392 ______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in No. 1:13-cv-12856-DJC, Judge Denise J. Casper. ______________________ Before DYK, WALLACH, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER RPost Holdings, Inc. and RPost Communications Ltd. (collectively, “RPost”) alleged that Sophos Inc. infringed claims 14, 19, 24, 26, 27 and 30 of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,628 (“the ’628 patent”). The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment to Sophos, holding that the asserted claims are invalid because they are anticipated by two prior art references, U.S. SOPHOS INC. v. RPOST HOLDINGS, INC. 2 Patent No. 6,609,196 (“Dickinson”) and U.S. Patent No. 7,233,992 (“Muldoon”). We agree that the asserted claims are anticipated by Dickinson and affirm the invalidity of the asserted claims on that basis. However, the district court’s Memorandum and Order granting summary judgment contained language suggesting that all claims of the ’628 patent are invalid. See J.A. 42 (“[T]he Court concludes that the ’628 patent is invalid.”) The parties agree that the district court’s judgment of invalidity must be limited to the asserted claims. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. The judgment of invalidity of claims 14, 19, 24, 26, 27 and 30 of the ’628 patent is affirmed. 2. The case is remanded for the district court to revise its judgment to clarify that the declaration of invalidity is limited to claims 14, 19, 24, 26, 27, and 30 of the ’628 patent. FOR THE COURT March 14, 2019 Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.