The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential decision Tuesday in *CellTrust Corp. v. MyRepChat, LLC*, affirming-in-part, vacating-in-part, and remanding a patent infringement case that originated in Minnesota federal court. The ruling addresses CellTrust Corporation's appeal of multiple adverse rulings from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.
CellTrust appealed the district court's denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law regarding infringement and validity of two patents: U.S. Patent No. 9,775,012 and U.S. Patent No. 10,778,837. The company also challenged the court's denial of its motion for a new trial and to alter or amend judgment in the case originally filed in 2019.
The dispute involves MyRepChat, LLC, formerly known as IonLake, LLC, and individual defendants Derrick Girard and Wade Girard. District Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright initially heard the case, which culminated in a December 2023 decision that CellTrust sought to overturn on appeal.
Circuit Judge Cunningham authored the Federal Circuit opinion for a three-judge panel that included Chief Judge Prost and District Judge Andrews. The court's mixed ruling suggests that while CellTrust prevailed on some issues, the district court's handling of other aspects of the case was appropriate.
The case centers on two patents owned by CellTrust Corporation. The '012 patent and '837 patent appear to involve technology relevant to the parties' business operations, though the specific technical details and claims at issue were not fully detailed in the available portions of the opinion.
Patent litigation involving judgment as a matter of law motions typically occurs after a jury trial when one party argues that no reasonable jury could have reached the verdict on the evidence presented. CellTrust's unsuccessful JMOL motion suggests that a jury found either that the defendants did not infringe the patents or that the patents were invalid.
The Federal Circuit's decision to affirm some portions while vacating others indicates that the appellate court found merit in some of CellTrust's arguments while upholding other aspects of the district court's rulings. The remand means the case will return to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Federal Circuit's opinion.
CellTrust was represented by Christopher D. Bright of Snell & Wilmer LLP in Costa Mesa, California, who argued the case before the Federal Circuit. Jing Hua also represented the plaintiff-appellant. The defendants were represented by Patrick M. Arenz of Robins Kaplan LLP in Minneapolis, along with Brenda L. Joly and Emily Elizabeth Niles.
The case number 2023-2057 indicates that CellTrust filed its appeal in 2023, seeking to overturn the district court's adverse rulings. Patent appeals typically go to the Federal Circuit, which has exclusive jurisdiction over patent appeals from district courts nationwide.
The original district court case was filed as No. 0:19-cv-02855-WMW-DJF, showing it was initiated in 2019 in the District of Minnesota. The case proceeded through discovery, trial, and post-trial motions over several years before reaching the Federal Circuit.
While the Federal Circuit's decision is marked as nonprecedential, meaning it cannot be cited as binding authority in future cases, it resolves the immediate dispute between these parties. However, the partial vacation and remand means litigation between CellTrust and MyRepChat is not entirely concluded.
The mixed nature of the ruling - affirming some aspects while vacating others - suggests that both parties achieved partial success at the appellate level. For CellTrust, the partial vacation may provide new opportunities to pursue its patent infringement claims, while MyRepChat can take satisfaction in having key aspects of the district court's ruling upheld.
Patent litigation involving multiple patents and both validity and infringement issues can be complex, often requiring courts to analyze technical evidence and apply intricate patent law doctrines. The Federal Circuit's expertise in patent law makes it the primary forum for resolving such disputes on appeal.
The remand means the district court will need to conduct further proceedings in accordance with the Federal Circuit's guidance. Depending on what aspects were vacated, this could involve new trials on certain issues, reconsideration of specific motions, or other proceedings as directed by the appellate court.
For companies involved in patent litigation, mixed appellate rulings like this demonstrate the complexity of intellectual property disputes and the importance of thorough legal strategies that address both infringement and validity questions across multiple patents.