SATCO PRODUCTS, INC. v. LIGHTING SCIENCE GROUP CORP. , No. 19-1639 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 19-1639 Document: 56 Page: 1 Filed: 03/12/2020 NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ SATCO PRODUCTS, INC., Appellant v. LIGHTING SCIENCE GROUP CORPORATION, Appellee ______________________ 2019-1639 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR201701639. ______________________ Decided: March 12, 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, argued for appellee. ______________________ Before DYK, CHEN, and STOLL, Circuit Judges. Case: 19-1639 2 Document: 56 SATCO PRODUCTS, INC. Page: 2 Filed: 03/12/2020 v. LIGHTING SCIENCE GROUP CORP. PER CURIAM. In this case, the Board found claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 8,967,844 not unpatentable in view of Tickner and Van De Ven based on arguments solely related to the limitations of claim 1, from which claim 15 depends. The Board’s decision finding claim 15 of the ‘844 patent not unpatentable in view of Tickner and Van De Ven is supported by substantial evidence. In an earlier, related proceeding— IPR2017-01280—the Board found claim 1 of the ‘844 patent, unpatentable over Chou and Wegner. On appeal, Petitioner has failed to argue that the Board’s decision invalidating claim 1 in the earlier proceeding abrogated the basis for the Board’s decision. See MaxLinear, Inc. v. CF CRESPE LLC, 880 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2018). This argument is thus waived. AFFIRMED
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.
