Opinion
2019-1639
03-12-2020
SATCO PRODUCTS, INC., Appellant v. LIGHTING SCIENCE GROUP CORPORATION, Appellee
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.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2017-01639. 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. 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.