Opinion
2019-1638
04-08-2020
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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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. IPR2017-01638. 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. 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 anticipated 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 because claims 2 and 6 of the '968 patent are the only remaining challenged claims in this case, we vacate the Board's decision of no anticipation or obviousness of claims 2 and 6 and remand for consideration of the parties' remaining arguments pertaining to those claims.
Claims 1, 11, 14, 15, and 19-23 of the '968 patent were determined to be unpatentable in Technical Consumer Products, Inc. v. Lighting Science Group Corporation, No. IPR2017-01287, 2018 WL 5733733 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2018), and Lighting Science Group Corp. did not appeal this determination. --------
VACATED AND REMANDED
COSTS
Costs to Appellant.