Case: 17-1797
`
`Document: 54-1
`
`Page: 1
`
`Filed: 07/23/2018
`
`(1 of 5)
`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`@Hniteh étateg (mean of gppeals
`
`for the jfeheral QEirtutt
`
`DIRTT ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS LTD,
`Appellant
`
`V.
`
`ALLSTEEL INC.,
`Appellee
`
`2017—1797
`
`Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2015-
`01691.
`
`Decided: July 23, 2018
`
`CHAD EDWARD NYDEGGER, Workman Nydegger, Salt
`Lake City, UT, argued for appellant. Also represented by
`MICHAEL J. FRODSHAM, DAVID R. TODD.
`
`R. TREVOR CARTER, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Indi-
`anapolis, IN, argued for appellee. Also represented by
`NICHOLAS M. ANDERSON, VICTOR P. JONAS, TIMOTHY M.
`SULLIVAN, Minneapolis, MN; JOEL SAYRES, Denver, CO.
`
`

`

`Case: 17—1797
`
`Document: 54-1
`
`Page:2
`
`Filed: 07/23/2018
`
`(2 of 5)
`
`2
`
`DIRTT ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS V. ALLSTEEL INC.
`
`Before O’MALLEY, CLEVENGER, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
`
`O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge.
`
`DIRTT Environmental Solutions, Ltd. appeals from a
`final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal
`Board (“Board”)
`in an inter-partes review proceeding,
`finding that Allsteel Inc.
`(“Allsteel”) had shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 4—7, 9, 10,
`14—20, and 25 of US. Patent No. 8,024,901 are unpatent-
`able under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Allsteel Inc. v. DIRTT Enutl.
`Sols. Ltd., No. IPR2015-01691, 2017 WL 379367 (P.T.A.B.
`Jan. 19, 2017). Because the Board’s final written decision
`addresses fewer than all claims challenged in Allsteel’s
`petition to institute inter-partes review, and the parties
`have not waived their objections to the Board’s failure to
`address the non-instituted claims, we vacate and remand
`to allow the Board to issue a final written decision con-
`
`sistent with SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348
`
`(2018).
`
`No costs.
`
`VACATED AND REMANDED
`
`COSTS
`
`

`

`Case: 17-1797
`
`Document: 54-2
`
`Page: 1
`
`Filed: 07/23/2018
`
`(3 of 5)
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`NOTICE OF ENTRY OF
`
`JUDGMENT ACCOMPANIED BY OPINION
`
`OPINION FILED AND JUDGMENT ENTERED: 07/23/2018
`
`The attached opinion announcing the judgment of the court in your case was filed and judgment was entered on
`the date indicated above. The mandate will be issued in due course.
`
`lnforrnation is also provided about petitions for rehearing and suggestions for rehearing en banc. The questions
`and answers are those frequently asked and answered by the Clerk's Office.
`
`No costs were taxed in this appeal.
`
`Regarding exhibits and visual aids: Your attention is directed Fed. R. App. P. 34(g) which states that the clerk
`may destroy or dispose of the exhibits if counsel does not reclaim them within a reasonable time after the clerk gives
`notice to remove them. (The clerk deems a reasonable time to be 15 days from the date the final mandate is issued.)
`
`FOR THE COURT
`
`ls/ Peter R_. Marksteiner
`Peter R. Marksteiner
`Clerk of Court
`
`17-1797 - DIRTT Environmental Solutions v. Allsteel Inc.
`United States Patent and Trademark Office, Case No. IPR2015-01691
`
`

`

`Case: 17-1797
`
`Document: 54-3
`
`Pagezl
`
`Filed:07/23/2018
`
`(4 of 5)
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`717 MADISON PLACE, N.W.
`WASHINGTON, DC. 20439
`
`PETER R. MARKSTEINER
`CLERK OF COURT
`
`202-275-8000
`
`Information Sheet
`
`Petitions for Rehearing and Petitions for Hearing and Rehearing En Banc
`
`1. When is a petition for rehearing appropriate?
`
`The Federal Circuit grants few petitions for rehearing each year. These petitions for
`
`rehearing are rarely successful because they typically fail to articulate sufficient
`
`grounds upon which to grant them. Of note, petitions for rehearing should not be used
`
`to reargue issues previously presented that were not accepted by the merits panel
`
`during initial consideration of the appeal. This is especially so when the court has
`
`entered a judgment of affirmance without opinion under Fed. Cir. R. 36. Such
`
`dispositions are entered if the court determines the judgment of the trial court is based
`
`on findings that are not clearly erroneous, the evidence supporting the jury verdict is
`
`sufficient, the record supports the trial court’s ruling, the decision of the administrative
`
`agency warrants affirmance under the appropriate standard of review, or the judgment
`or decision is without an error of law.
`
`2. When is a petition for hearing/rehearing en banc appropriate?
`
`En banc consideration is rare. Each three-judge merits panel is charged with deciding
`
`individual appeals under existing Federal Circuit law as established in precedential
`Opinions. Because each merits panel may enter precedential opinions, a party seeking
`
`en banc consideration must typically show that either the merits panel has (1) failed to
`
`follow existing decisions of the US. Supreme Court or Federal Circuit precedent or (2)
`
`followed Federal Circuit precedent that the petitioning party now seeks to have
`overruled by the court en banc. Federal Circuit Internal Operating Procedure #13
`
`identifies several reasons when the Federal Circuit may opt to hear a matter en banc.
`
`3. Is it necessary to file either of these petitions before filing a petition for
`
`a writ certiorari in the US. Supreme Court?
`
`No. A petition for a writ of certiorari may be filed once the court has issued a final
`
`judgment in a case.
`
`For additional information and filing requirements, please refer to Fed.
`
`Hearing or Rehearing En Banc).
`
`Cir. R. 40 (Petitions for Rehearing) and Fed. Cir. R. 35 (Petitions for
`
`Revised May 10, 2018
`
`

`

`Case: 17-1797
`
`Document: 54-4
`
`Page:1
`
`Filed: 07/23/2018
`
`(5 of 5)
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`717 MADISON PLACE, N.W.
`WASHINGTON, DC. 20439
`
`PETER R. MARKSTEINER
`CLERK OF COURT
`
`202-275-8000
`
`Information Sheet
`
`Filing a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
`
`There is no automatic right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States from
`
`judgments of the Federal Circuit. Instead, a party must file a petition for a writ of
`
`certiorari which the Supreme Court will grant only when there are compelling reasons. See
`
`Supreme Court Rule 10.
`
`Time. The petition must be filed in the Supreme Court of the United States within 90 days
`
`of the entry of judgment in this Court or within 90 days of the denial of a timely petition for
`
`rehearing. The judgment is entered on the day the Federal Circuit issues a final decision in
`
`your case. The time does not run from the issuance of the mandate. See Supreme Court
`Rule 13.
`
`Fees. Either the $300 docketing fee or a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis with
`
`an affidavit in support thereof must accompany the petition. See Supreme Court Rules 38
`and 39.
`
`Authorized Filer. The petition must be filed by a member of the bar of the Supreme Court
`
`of the United States or by the petitioner as a self-represented individual.
`
`Format of a Petition. The Supreme Court Rules are very specific about the content and
`
`formatting of petitions. See Supreme Court Rules 14, 33, 34. Additional information is
`
`available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/filingandrules/rules guidanceaspx.
`
`Number of Copies. Forty copies of a petition must be filed unless the petitioner is
`
`proceeding in forma pauperis, in which case an original and ten copies of both the petition
`
`for writ of certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis must be filed.
`
`See Supreme Court Rule 12.
`
`Filing. Petitions are filed in paper at Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, 1 First
`
`Street, NE, Washington, DC 20543.
`
`Effective November 13, 2017, electronic filing is also required for filings submitted by
`
`parties represented by counsel. See Supreme Court Rule 29.7. Additional information
`
`about electronic filing at the Supreme Court is available at
`
`https://www.supremecourt.gov/filingandrules/electronicfiling.aspx.
`
`No documents are filed at the Federal Circuit and the Federal Circuit provides no
`
`information to the Supreme Court unless the Supreme Court asks for the information.
`
`Revised May 10, 2018
`
`