Log in
E-mail
Password
Remember
Forgot password ?
Become a member for free
Sign up
Sign up
New member
Sign up for FREE
New customer
Discover our services
Settings
Settings
Dynamic quotes 
OFFON

MarketScreener Homepage  >  Equities  >  Nyse  >  Emerson Electric Co.    EMR

EMERSON ELECTRIC CO.

(EMR)
  Report
SummaryQuotesChartsNewsRatingsCalendarCompanyFinancialsConsensusRevisions 
SummaryMost relevantAll NewsPress ReleasesOfficial PublicationsSector newsAnalyst Recommendations

Last Week In The Federal Circuit (November 16-20): A Beautiful Sunset For CBMS

11/25/2020 | 09:12am EST

It's a few days before Thanksgiving and the sunsets are shorter and earlier, so we thought we'd discuss a CBM before the sun completely sets on that procedure. Below we provide our usual weekly statistics and our case of the week—our highly subjective selection based on whatever case piqued our interest.

Precedential opinions: 4

Non-precedential opinions: 3

Rule 36: 1

Longest case pending from argument:  Tie between  Whitewater West Industries v. Alleshouse, Nos. 19-1852, 19-2323 and Vectura Limited v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, No. 20-1054 (45 days)

Shortest case pending from argument (non-rule 36):  Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Iancu, No. 19-2040 (15 days)

Case of the week: SIPCO, LLC v. Emerson Electric Co., No. 18-1635 (Nov. 17, 2020)

Panel: Judges O'Malley, Reyna, and Chen, with Judge Chen authoring the opinion

You should read this case if: you filed a CBM case before the statutory sunset in September.

Even though Halloween is long gone (as is our candy), we thought we'd discuss a zombie case this week. First decided in September 2019, the original Federal Circuit decision in this case held that the Board erred in instituting CBM review on SIPCO's patent—that is, the Board erroneously determined SIPCO's patent recited a business method that was not excluded from review as a "technological invention." That meant that SIPCO had beat the long odds (see post  here) and prevailed as a patent owner in a PTAB case. (For those that don't know what CBM is, it's probably a little late now. The procedure sunset in September 2020, which means there are no more future cases although the Board and Court will still be deciding the pending ones.)

Emerson Electric, however, said not so fast. It filed a cert petition raising whether the Patent Office's threshold determination that SIPCO's patent qualified for CBM review was reviewable in an appeal from a PTAB final decision. That issue, of course, was similar to a then-pending case in the Supreme CourtThryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, 140 S. Ct. 1367 (2020). And in Thryv, the Supreme Court held that the Patent Office decision as to whether earlier litigation bars institution of inter parties review under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) is "final and nonappealable" under the "No Appeal" provision of 35 U.S.C. § 314(d). And as is common when the question presented in a pending cert petition may be affected by a recently decided Supreme Court decision, the Supreme Court GVR'd (granted the petition, vacated the decision, and remanded), here, in light of Thryv.

So SIPCO came back to life in the Federal Circuit. The Court noted that CBM review is subject to the near-identical "No Appeal" provision in 35 U.S.C. § 324(e), which states that "[t]he determination by the Director whether to institute a post-grant review under this section shall be final and nonappealable." And the Court explained that the determination whether a patent qualifies for CBM review—that is, whether it claims a business method and is not a "technological invention"—is "expressly and exclusively tied to the decision to institute the proceeding." The Federal Circuit thus concluded that Thryv makes clear that the threshold determination that a patent qualifies for CBM review is non-appealable under 35 U.S.C. § 324(e).

Having held that it couldn't review whether SIPCO's patent was a CBM, the Federal Circuit had to address patentability. The PTAB had determined the claims ineligible under § 101 and unpatentable under § 103. The Court side-stepped eligibility and addressed only obviousness—which really amounted to three claim construction issues, although the Court noted that substantial evidence supported the Board even under two of SIPCO's preferred constructions. We're not going to dive into those case-specific claim construction issues here—one of which briefly touches upon the ever-present issue of trying to import limitations from the specification into the claims. 

But as an aside, it you've been looking for a case stating the what-should-be-unremarkable proposition that just because a claim term had one meaning in one case doesn't mean it has to have the same meaning in another case, this case is for you. The Court noted that just because it construed the term "low power RF signal" one way in an earlier case involving the same parties doesn't mean that a similar term has the same meaning in a later case. The Court noted: "that case involved different patents, in entirely different patent families, with different specifications. We find it unsurprising that similarly worded claims may be construed differently when presented in such different contexts and different records."

Enjoy Thanksgiving everyone.

Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved

Mr Brian Matsui
Morrison & Foerster LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco
California
CA 94105-2482
UNITED STATES
Tel: 4152687000
Fax: 4152687522
E-mail: mcervantes@mofo.com
URL: www.mofo.com

© Mondaq Ltd, 2020 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source Business Briefing

Stocks mentioned in the article
ChangeLast1st jan.
EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. -0.71% 82.75 Delayed Quote.2.82%
THRYV HOLDINGS, INC. -4.20% 18.69 Delayed Quote.44.52%
All news about EMERSON ELECTRIC CO.
07:50aEMERSON ELECTRIC : UBS Upgrades Emerson Electric to Buy From Neutral, Adjusts Pr..
MT
01/11EMERSON ELECTRIC : Opens New $49 Million Global Headquarters for Welding and Ass..
AQ
01/04EMERSON : Exchange Focuses on Empowering Companies to Rapidly Accelerate Digital..
BU
2020Bosses Balk at Requiring Covid-19 Vaccine for Workers
DJ
2020EMERSON ELECTRIC : Introduces Advanced Redundant Control System for Increased Op..
AQ
2020Emerson Electric Reports Trailing Three-Month Orders Down 4% in November
MT
2020EMERSON ELECTRIC CO : Regulation FD Disclosure, Financial Statements and Exhibit..
AQ
2020EMERSON ELECTRIC : Introduces Advanced Redundant Control System (ARCS) for Incre..
PU
2020EMERSON ELECTRIC : Named to Food Logistics 2019 FL100+ Top Software and Technolo..
AQ
2020EMERSON ELECTRIC : Joystick System Simplifies Marine Vessel Maneuvers; AVENTICSâ..
AQ
More news
Financials (USD)
Sales 2021 17 257 M - -
Net income 2021 1 942 M - -
Net Debt 2021 4 065 M - -
P/E ratio 2021 25,7x
Yield 2021 2,38%
Capitalization 49 606 M 49 606 M -
EV / Sales 2021 3,11x
EV / Sales 2022 2,91x
Nbr of Employees 83 500
Free-Float 62,3%
Chart EMERSON ELECTRIC CO.
Duration : Period :
Emerson Electric Co. Technical Analysis Chart | MarketScreener
Full-screen chart
Technical analysis trends EMERSON ELECTRIC CO.
Short TermMid-TermLong Term
TrendsBullishBullishBullish
Income Statement Evolution
Consensus
Sell
Buy
Mean consensus OUTPERFORM
Number of Analysts 24
Average target price 83,35 $
Last Close Price 83,34 $
Spread / Highest target 20,0%
Spread / Average Target 0,01%
Spread / Lowest Target -22,0%
EPS Revisions
Managers and Directors
NameTitle
David N. Farr Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
Michael H. Train President
Steven J. Pelch Chief Operating Officer & Executive Vice President
Frank J. Dellaquila Chief Financial Officer & Senior Executive VP
Jake Fritz Chief Information Officer & Vice President
Sector and Competitors
1st jan.Capitalization (M$)
EMERSON ELECTRIC CO.2.82%49 960
KEYENCE CORPORATION-1.66%134 976
SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SE5.24%80 959
NIDEC CORPORATION4.39%79 378
EATON CORPORATION PLC4.39%49 885
WEG S.A.18.66%36 084