Case: 21-1401
`
`Document:55
`
`Page:1_
`
`Filed: 04/20/2022
`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`GAnited States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`
`POLYGROUP LIMITED MCO,
`Appellant
`
`Vv.
`
`WILLIS ELECTRIC COMPANY, LTD.,
`Appellee
`
`2021-1401, 2021-1402
`
`Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2016-
`00800, IPR2016-00801, IPR2016-01609, IPR2016-01610,
`IPR2016-01611, IPR2016-01612.
`
`OPINION ISSUED: January 19, 2022
`OPINION MODIFIED: April 20, 2022*
`
`DOUGLAS SALYERS, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sand-
`ers LLP, Atlanta, GA, argued for appellant. Also repre-
`sented by
`PUJA PATEL LEA;
`ROBERT A. ANGLE,
`CHRISTOPHER FORSTNER, Richmond, VA.
`
`This opinion has been modified and reissued fol-
`*
`lowing a petition for rehearing filed by Appellee.
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 21-1401 Page:2_Filed: 04/20/2022Document:55
`
`
`
`2
`
`POLYGROUPLIMITED MCOv. WILLIS ELECTRIC COMPANY,LTD.
`
`PATRICK M. ARENZ, Robins Kaplan LLP, Minneapolis,
`MN,argued for appellee. Also represented by BRENDA L.
`JOLY, EMILY ELIZABETH NILES, RONALD JAMES SCHUTZ.
`
`Before DYK, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
`
`Opinionfor the courtfiled by Circuit Judge HUGHES.
`
`Opinion concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-partfiled by
`Circuit Judge STOLL.
`
`HUGHES, Circuit Judge.
`
`This is a patent case involving lighted artificial trees.
`Polygroup Limited MCO appeals from the final written de-
`cision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter
`partes review upholding the patentability of claims 7, 10,
`11, 16, 18-22, 25, 26, and 28 of U.S. Patent No. 8,454,186
`and claims 1—3, 5-9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,454,187. With respect to every claim except claim 7
`of the 186 patent, we reverse the Board’s determination
`that Polygroup failed to establish the unpatentability of
`the challenged claims. We conclude that the Board applied
`erroneous claim constructions and that, under the proper
`constructions, Miller teaches every limitation of claims 10,
`11, 16, 18-22, 25, 26, and 28 of the ’186 patent and claims
`1—8, 5-9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 of the ’187 patent. Polygroup
`has, therefore, established that these claims are unpatent-
`able.
`
`For claim 7 of the ’186 patent, the Board exceeded the
`scope of our remand when it considered a combination of
`Miller and Lessner. We therefore vacate and remandits
`decision with regard to claim 7 of the 186 patent.
`
`I A
`
`Willis Electric Company, Ltd. owns the 7186 and 7187
`patents, both of which are “directed to lighted artificial
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 21-1401 Page:3_Filed: 04/20/2022Document:55
`
`
`
`POLYGROUP LIMITED MCOv. WILLIS ELECTRIC COMPANY, LTD.
`
`3
`
`trees having separable, modular tree portions mechani-
`cally and electrically connectable between trunk portions.”
`186 patent 1:16—19; ’187 patent 1:15—-18. The trunk por-
`tions house connector assemblies containingelectrical wir-
`ing and electrical connectors that provide a source of
`electricity for light strings. ’186 patent 11:4—7, 11:57—67,
`14:65-67. The connector assemblies “are securely posi-
`tioned within their respective trunk sections” and designed
`to “permit the electrical connection of the connectors at any
`rotational orientation about a vertical axis,” thus simplify-
`ing tree assembly. Id. 15:1—6, 15:45—59.
`
`The patents share much of the samespecification and
`their independentclaims follow a commonpattern, disclos-
`ing componentsofa first tree portion, components ofa sec-
`ondtree portion, and—pertinent to this appeal—howthose
`tree portions connect to each other. Claim 10 of the ’186
`patent is representative and is reproduced below.
`
`10. A lighted artificial tree, comprising:
`
`a first tree portion includingafirst trunk
`portion, a first plurality of branches joined
`to the first trunk portion, anda first light
`string, the first trunk portion havinga first
`trunk body and a trunk connector, at least
`a portion of the trunk connector housed
`within the first trunk body andelectrically
`connectedto thefirst light string;
`
`a second tree portion including a second
`trunk portion,
`a
`second plurality of
`branches joined to the second trunk por-
`tion, and a second light string, the second
`trunk portion havinga first trunk body and
`a trunk connector, at least a portion of the
`trunk connector housed within the second
`trunk portion andelectrically connected to
`the secondlight string; and
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1401
`
`Document:55
`
`Page:4
`
`Filed: 04/20/2022
`
`4
`
`POLYGROUP LIMITED MCOv. WILLIS ELECTRIC COMPANY,LTD.
`
`wherein the secondtree portion is mechani-
`cally and electrically connectable to the first
`tree portion by coupling a lower end ofthe
`second trunk body to an upper end of the
`first trunk body along a common vertical
`axis at a rotational orientation of the first
`trunk portion relative the second trunk
`portion about the common vertical axis,
`thereby causing the trunk connector of the
`first trunk portion to makeanelectrical con-
`nection with the trunk connectorof the sec-
`ond trunk portion within an interior of the
`lightedartificial tree, the electrical connec-
`tion being made independent of the rota-
`tion orientation of the first trunk portion
`relative the second trunk portion about the
`commonvertical axis.
`
`186 patent 22:33—-60 (emphasis added as by the Board at
`Appx21—22). Polygroup petitioned for and the Board insti-
`tuted inter partes review of claims 1, 3, 4, 6-9, 11, 15-22,
`25, 26, and 28 of the 186 patent and claims 1—15 of the 7187
`patent.
`
`For every challenged claim, Polygroup relied on U.S.
`Patent No. 4,020,201 (Miller) as a primary reference for ob-
`viousness. Miller discloses an artificial tree “wherein the
`lighting system wiringis essentially housed and concealed
`within the trunk members”that are “removably sleevedto-
`gether.” Miller 1:5-6, 1:30—-82. Miller uses a traditional
`plug and socketelectrical connector within its hollow trunk
`to form an electrical connection between light strings.
`Appx11, 15.
`
`The Boardinitially found that Polygroup had failed to
`prove by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the
`challenged claims were unpatentable. On appeal, weaf-
`firmed the Board’s decision with respect to claim 15 of the
`186 patent and claims 4, 10, and 13 of the 187 patent. Pol-
`ygroup Ltd. MCO v. Willis Elec. Co., Ltd., 759 F. App’x 934,
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1401
`
`Document:55
`
`Page:5_
`
`Filed: 04/20/2022
`
`POLYGROUP LIMITED MCOv. WILLIS ELECTRIC COMPANY, LTD.
`
`5
`
`936 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (Polygroup J). But we vacated the
`Board’s patentability determinations on the remaining
`claims because “the Board [had] applied erroneous claim
`constructions and [had] refused to consider Polygroup’s ar-
`gumentsthata single reference renders manyof the claims
`obvious.” Jd. We therefore instructed the Board to consider
`on remand “Polygroup’s
`arguments based on Mil-
`ler... alone and whether those claims are unpatentable
`under a proper construction.” Id.
`
`B
`
`On remand, the Board found that Polygroup had estab-
`lished by a preponderanceof the evidence that claims1, 3,
`4, 6, 8, and 9 of the 7186 patent are unpatentable in view of
`Miller alone,! but had failed to establish the samefor the
`remaining challenged claims—specifically, claims 7, 10, 11,
`16-22, 25, 26, and 28 of the 7186 patent and claims 1-3, 5—
`9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 of the ’187 patent.
`
`1
`
`Willis contended, and the Board agreed, that Miller
`“requires the separate steps of makingan electrical connec-
`tion betweenthefirst and second trunk members and mak-
`ing a mechanical connection between the trunk members.”?
`Appx13—14, 23. Thus, the dispositive consideration, accord-
`ing to the Board, was whetherthe claims “require that the
`mechanical connection between the tree/trunk portionsre-
`sults in the electrical connections.” Appx21, 24.
`
`The Board found that independent claim 1 of the 7186
`patent had no such requirement, based on its readingof the
`following “wherein”clause:
`
`The Board’s decision with respect to the patenta-
`1
`bility of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 of the ’186 patent has not
`been challenged on appeal andisfinal.
`2
`Polygroup does not disputethis.
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1401
`
`Document:55
`
`Page:6_
`
`Filed: 04/20/2022
`
`6
`
`POLYGROUP LIMITED MCOv. WILLIS ELECTRIC COMPANY, LTD.
`
`wherein the second tree portion is mechanically
`coupleableto the first tree portion about a central
`vertical axis, and the secondtree portion is electri-
`cally connectable to the first tree portion such that
`a portion of the first trunk electrical connector of
`the first trunk portion contacts a portion ofthe sec-
`ond trunk electrical connector of the second trunk
`portion, thereby creating an electrical connection
`between the first wiring assembly and the second
`wiring assembly.
`
`186 patent 21:14—-53. Under the Board’s reading,“[c]laim 1
`does not require structure that provides mechanical and
`electrical connection in a single step (e.g., when the me-
`chanical connection is made, an electrical connection is also
`made).” Appx14 (internal quotation marks omitted). The
`Board acknowledgedthat this claim “requires that ‘the sec-
`ondtree portion is mechanically coupleable to the first tree
`portion about a central vertical axis.” Appx14. But it de-
`termined that “the claim permits that mechanical connec-
`tion to be independent of the electrical connection.”
`Appx14.
`
`The Board concluded that Polygroup had established
`the unpatentability of claim 1 of the ’186 patent in view of
`Miller alone. It further concluded that claims 3, 4, 6, 8, and
`9—all of which depend from independent claim 1—of the
`186 patent are obvious in view of Miller alone.
`
`2
`
`The Board separately considered the patentability of
`claim 7 of the ’186 patent. Polygroup had conceded that
`Miller alone does not teach every limitation of that claim
`andinstead asserted that “one skilled in the art would have
`modified Miller’s teachings based on those” in U.S. Patent
`No. 3,409,867 (Lessner). Appx19. The Board was not per-
`suaded. According to the Board, combining Miller and
`Lessner “adds an additional connection point in Miller’s
`plug and socket connectors, further complicating assembly,
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1401
`
`Document:55
`
`Page:7
`
`Filed: 04/20/2022
`
`POLYGROUP LIMITED MCOv. WILLIS ELECTRIC COMPANY, LTD.
`
`7
`
`rather than providing ease and speed of assembly anddis-
`assembly.” Appx20. Because the Board found no motiva-
`tion to combine, the Board concluded that Polygroupfailed
`to establish the unpatentability of claim 7 of the ’186 pa-
`tent.
`
`3
`
`The Board found that Polygroup had failed to establish
`that the remaining challenged claims are unpatentable.
`Althoughall of the independent claims—.e., claims 1, 10,
`20, and 28 of the ’186 patent and claims 1 and 7 of the 7187
`patent—generally follow a common pattern, the Board de-
`termined that only independent claim 1 of the ’186 patent
`is obviousin view of Miller alone.
`
`“Critically distinguishing” the remaining independent
`claims “from independent claim 1,” the Boardsaid, “is that
`they require that the mechanical connection between the
`tree/trunk portions results in the electrical connections.”
`Appx21, 24. With little explanation, the Board relied upon
`the independent claims’ similarly-patterned “wherein”
`clauses as support for reading a “results in” limitation into
`each respective claim. Appx21—22, 24-25 (quoting the
`“wherein” clauses in claims 10, 20, and 28 of the 7186 patent
`and claims 1 and 7 of the ’187 patent).
`
`The Board proceeded to decide that, because “the elec-
`trical connection in Miller is independentof the mechanical
`connection [between] tree portions,” Appx23, 25, Polygroup
`hadfailed to establish the unpatentability of claims 10, 20,
`and 28 of the 186 patent and claims 1 and 7 of the ’187
`patent based on Miller alone. Consequently, it also con-
`cluded that Polygroup had failed to establish the unpatent-
`ability of claims 11, 16-19, 21, 22, 25, and 26 of the ’186
`patent—all of which depend from either independent claim
`10 or 20—and dependentclaims2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14,
`and 15 of the ’187 patent—all of which depend from either
`independentclaim1or 7.
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 21-1401 Page:8_Filed: 04/20/2022Document:55
`
`
`
`8
`
`POLYGROUPLIMITED MCOv. WILLIS ELECTRIC COMPANY, LTD.
`
`Polygroup now appeals. We have jurisdiction under
`28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
`
`II
`
`Wefirst address claim 7 of the ’186 patent. The Board
`should not have considered whether that claim was obvious
`in view of Miller and Lessner because its consideration of
`Lessner was outside the scope of our mandate. “Unlessre-
`mandedby[an appellate] court, all issues within the scope
`of the appealed judgment are deemed incorporated within
`the mandate and thus are precluded from further adjudi-
`cation.” Hayward Indus., Inc. v. Pentair Water Pool & Spa,
`Inc., 814 F. App’x 592, 597 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (alteration in
`original) (quoting Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 166
`F.3d 1379, 1883 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Our mandate in Poly-
`group I remanded to the Board the question of whether,
`under a proper construction, the challenged claims are un-
`patentable in view of Miller alone. See 759 F. App’x at 936,
`944. The Board went beyond that question when it ren-
`dered its obviousness determination based on a lack of mo-
`tivation to combine Miller and Lessner.
`
`Wetherefore vacate and remand the Board’s decision
`concluding that Polygroupfailed to establish the unpatent-
`ability of claim 7 of the 7186 patent in view of Miller and
`Lessner. We note that Polygroup admitted that Miller does
`not teach every limitation in the claim. See Oral Argument
`at 5:35-54, https://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts. gov/de-
`fault.aspx?fl=21-1401_10052021.mp38
`(Oct.
`5,
`2021);
`Appx19. The Board may consider this statement on re-
`mand whenit considers the unpatentability of claim 7 in
`view of Miller alone.
`
`III
`
`Polygroup asserts that the Board erroneously con-
`strued the challenged independent claims to “require that
`the mechanical connection between the tree/trunk portions
`results in the electrical connections.” Appx21, 24. We
`agree.
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 21-1401 Page:9_Filed: 04/20/2022Document:55
`
`
`
`POLYGROUPLIMITED MCOv. WILLIS ELECTRIC COMPANY, LTD.
`
`9
`
`Wereview the Board’s ultimate claim construction de
`novo and any underlying factual determinations involving
`extrinsic evidence for substantial evidence. In re Cuozzo
`Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`Because Polygroupfiled its IPR petition before November
`13, 2018, we apply the broadest reasonable interpretation
`standard. See Ethicon LLCv. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 847
`F. App’x 901, 906 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Underthis standard,
`claim termsare generally given their ordinary and custom-
`ary meaning, as would be understood by a skilled artisan
`in the context of the entire disclosure. Trivascular, Inc. v.
`Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1061 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`Despite the similarities between the language in
`claims 1 and 10, the Board construed claim 10 to “require
`that the mechanical connection between the tree/trunk
`portions results in the electrical connections.” Appx21.
`Said differently, the claim “require[s] structure that pro-
`vides mechanical and electrical connection in a single step
`(e.g., when the mechanical connection is made, anelectri-
`cal connection is made).” Appx14 (internal quotation marks
`omitted). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation
`standard, we cannot agree.
`
`While the term “coupling” is broad enough to mean me-
`chanically connecting or electrically connecting or both,?
`neither the claim language nor the specification requires
`such “coupling” occur in a single step. Indeed, the specifi-
`cation discloses embodiments in which a series of mechan-
`ical connections are made when assembling the lighted
`artificial tree’s tree/trunk portions. See, e.g., 186 patent
`8:63-9:5 (“[S]uch mechanical and electrical connections are
`
`See, e.g., Couple, Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary,
`3
`https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/couple (last
`visited Dec. 16, 2021) (“to join for combinedeffect”; “to fas-
`ten together”; “to bring (two electric circuits) into such close
`proximity as to permit mutual influence”).
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 21-1401 Page:10_Filed: 04/20/2022Document:55
`
`
`
`10 POLYGROUP LIMITED MCOv. WILLIS ELECTRIC COMPANY,LTD.
`
`accomplished in part through a series of trunk connectors
`and wiring harnessesinserted into base 102 and trunkpor-
`tions 120, 160, and 180.”); id. 15:13-18 (“These multiple
`points of mechanical contact between connector assemblies
`200 and 212 combined withthe secure fit of connection as-
`semblies 200 and 212 to the trunk portions via plugs 254
`creates a substantial mechanical coupling not only at the
`trunk walls, but also at the inside, center portions of base
`portion 102 and trunk portion 120.”); id. 16:50—53 (“Conse-
`quently, a secondary mechanical coupling between con-
`nector assembly 212 and connector assembly 244, and
`between trunk portions 160 and 180, is formed.”). And the
`specification also indicates that electrical connections can
`precede mechanical connections. See id. 16:14—17 (“[W]hen
`trunk portions 120 and 160 are joined, first trunk wiring
`harness 222, already in electrical connection with con-
`nector assembly 200, becomeselectrically connected with
`second trunk wiring harness 230 via connector assembly
`212.” (emphasis added)).
`
`Thus, under the broadest reasonableinterpretation, we
`construe claim 10 of the ’186 patent to permit the mechan-
`ical and electrical connections be made independently. For
`the same reasonsthat wereject the Board’s construction of
`claim 10, we also reject the Board’s identical constructions
`of claim 28 of the 186 patent and claims 1 and 7 of the 187
`patent.
`
`In addition, we conclude that claim 20 of the 7186 pa-
`tent does not require a mechanical connection to result in
`an electrical connection. Claim 20 provides that the tree
`portions can be connected mechanically and electrically “by
`aligning” the trunk portions “such that a portion of the first
`trunk wall is coupled to a portion of the second trunk wall
`to form a first mechanical connection” between the trunk
`portions, and a “portion ofthe first [trunk] connectoris re-
`ceived by the second [trunk] connector, thereby forming a
`second mechanical connection between”the trunk portions
`“and forming an electrical connection between” the trunk
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1401
`
`Document:55
`
`Page:11
`
`Filed: 04/20/2022
`
`POLYGROUP LIMITED MCOv. WILLIS ELECTRIC COMPANY, LTD. 11
`
`wiring assemblies. Jd. 23:52—24:3 (emphases added). This
`language makes clear that the mechanical andelectrical
`connections need not occur in a single step. The “aligning”
`step forms the first mechanical connection, while the “re-
`ceiving” step forms both the second mechanical connection
`between the trunk portions and the electrical connection
`between the trunk wiring assemblies.
`
`Weaccordingly conclude that the Board applied erro-
`neous claim constructions whenit upheld the patentability
`of independent claims 10, 20, and 28 of the 186 patent and
`independent claims 1 and 7 of the 7187 patent. Under the
`proper construction, we conclude that Miller teaches every
`limitation of these claims and, therefore, that Polygroup
`has established the unpatentability of each independent
`claim challenged on appeal. See In re Hodges, 882 F.3d
`1107, 1115-16 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (overturning the Board’s
`claim construction and then finding claims unpatentable
`under the proper construction because that was the “only
`permissible factual finding”). As Willis admitted, the de-
`pendentclaimsall rise and fall with their corresponding
`independent claims. See Oral Argument at 25:08-30
`(Oct. 5, 2021). Therefore, claims 11, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25,
`and 26 of the 186 patent, which depend from either inde-
`pendent claim 10 or 20, are unpatentable. As are claims 2,
`3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 of the ’187 patent, which
`depend from either independent claim 1 or 7.
`
`REVERSED, VACATED, AND REMANDED
`
`No costs.
`
`Costs
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 21-1401. Page:12~Filed: 04/20/2022Document:55
`
`
`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`GAnited States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`
`POLYGROUP LIMITED MCO,
`Appellant
`
`Vv.
`
`WILLIS ELECTRIC COMPANY, LTD.,
`Appellee
`
`2021-1401, 2021-1402
`
`Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2016-
`00800, IPR2016-00801, IPR2016-01609, IPR2016-01610,
`IPR2016-01611, IPR2016-01612.
`
`STOLL, Circuit Judge, concurring-in-part and dissenting-
`in-part.
`
`I respectfully dissent-in-part. I agree with the Board’s
`construction of claims 10, 20, and 28 of the ’186 patent and
`claims 1 and 7 of the ’187 patent, which, in my view, cover
`a different embodiment than claim 1 of the ’186 patent.
`Thus, I would affirm the Board’s patentability determina-
`tions. As to claim 7 of the 7186 patent, however, I agree
`with the majority’s analysis and therefore concur with the
`vacatur and remand of the Board’s decision as to that
`claim.
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 21-1401 Page:13_Filed: 04/20/2022Document:55
`
`
`
`2
`
`POLYGROUPLIMITED MCOv. WILLIS ELECTRIC COMPANY,LTD.
`
`The shared patent specification discloses two distinct
`embodiments relevant to this claim construction dispute:
`(1) an embodimentin which the mechanical coupling and
`electrical connection are made separately and inde-
`pendently, and (2) an embodimentin which the mechanical
`coupling simultaneously creates an electrical connection.
`In my view, Polygroup’s construction, which the majority
`accepts, is erroneous because it fails to account for the
`claim language requiring a simultaneous connection.
`
`Claim 1 of the 7187 patent provides a particularly
`strong example:
`
`. a first tree
`.
`A lighted artificial tree, comprising: .
`portion ... [and] a secondtree portion...
`
`and the second tree portion is electrically connect-
`able to the first tree portion such that a portion of
`the first trunk electrical connectorof thefirst trunk
`portion contacts a portion of the second trunk elec-
`trical connector of the second trunk portion when
`the first tree portion and the secondtree portion are
`mechanically coupled, ...
`
`187 patent col. 21 ll. 9-64 (emphasis added). Claim 1 of
`the ’187 patent clearly requires an electrical connection
`“when [the tree portions] are mechanically coupled.” Id.
`at col. 21 ll. 41-42.
`In other words, the plain claim lan-
`guage dictates that when the mechanical connection is
`made, an electrical connection is also made.
`In contrast
`with claim 1 of the 7186 patent, which recites a mechanical
`connection that is independentofthe electrical connection,
`claim 1 of the ’187 patent requires the mechanical andelec-
`trical connection to occur in a single step—the samestep.
`Accordingly, claim 1 of the ’187 patent requires structure
`that provides mechanical andelectrical connection in a sin-
`gle step, whereasclaim 1 of the ’186 patent does not require
`such structural elements.
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1401
`
`Document:55
`
`Page:14
`
`Filed: 04/20/2022
`
`POLYGROUP LIMITED MCOv. WILLIS ELECTRIC COMPANY, LTD.
`
`3
`
`Similarly, claim 7 of the ’187 patent, and claims 10, 20,
`and 28 of the ’186 patent also require the mechanical cou-
`pling to “caus[e],” “make,” or “form” the electrical connec-
`tion. See ’186 patent col. 24 ll. 51-63 (“the second trunk
`portion is mechanically and electrically connectable to the
`first trunk portion .
`.
`. thereby causing the trunk connector
`of the first trunk portion to make an electrical connection
`with the trunk connector of the second trunkportion.. .”);
`see 187 patentcol. 15 ll. 48-52 (“A user simply aligns the
`trunk portion with the base portion or other trunk portion
`along a vertical axis and brings the trunk portion down-
`ward to couple with the stationary base or trunk portion,
`thus mechanically coupling and electrically connecting the
`tree portions.”). As such, in my view,the plain language of
`those claims also requires simultaneouselectrical and me-
`chanical connection.
`
`I
`For these reasons, I respectfully dissent-in-part.
`would affirm the Board’s determination that Polygroup
`failed to prove that claims 10, 11, 16, 18-22, 25, 26, and 28
`of the 7186 patent and claims 1—3, 5-9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 of
`the 187 patent are unpatentable over the prior art of rec-
`ord.
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1401
`
`Document:56
`
`Page:1_
`
`Filed: 04/20/2022
`
`GAnited States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`
`POLYGROUP LIMITED MCO,
`Appellant
`
`Vv.
`
`WILLIS ELECTRIC COMPANY, LTD.,
`Appellee
`
`2021-1401, 2021-1402
`
`Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2016-
`01610, IPR2016-00800, IPR2016-01609, IPR2016-00801,
`IPR2016-01611, IPR2016-01612.
`
`JUDGMENT
`
`THIS CAUSE having been considered,it is
`
`ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
`
`REVERSED, VACATED, AND REMANDED
`
`April 20, 2022
`Date
`
`FOR THE COURT
`
`/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
`Peter R. Marksteiner
`Clerk of Court
`
`