Sophos Inc. v. Rpost Holdings, Inc., Rpost Communications Ltd.

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
SOPHOS INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
RPOST HOLDINGS, INC., RPOST
COMMUNICATIONS LTD.,
Defendants-Appellants
______________________
2018-1392
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts in No. 1:13-cv-12856-DJC, Judge
Denise J. Casper.
______________________
Before D YK, WALLACH , and HUGHES , Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
RPost Holdings, Inc. and RPost Communications Ltd.
(collectively, “RPost”) alleged that Sophos Inc. infringed
claims 14, 19, 24, 26, 27 and 30 of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,628
(“the ’628 patent”). The United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment
to Sophos, holding that the asserted claims are invalid be-
cause they are anticipated by two prior art references, U.S.

-- 1 of 2 --

SOPHOS INC. v. RPOST HOLDINGS, INC. 2
Patent No. 6,609,196 (“Dickinson”) and U.S. Patent No.
7,233,992 (“Muldoon”).
We agree that the asserted claims are anticipated by
Dickinson and affirm the invalidity of the asserted claims
on that basis. However, the district court’s Memorandum
and Order granting summary judgment contained lan-
guage suggesting that all claims of the ’628 patent are in-
valid. See J.A. 42 (“[T]he Court concludes that the ’628
patent is invalid.”) The parties agree that the district
court’s judgment of invalidity must be limited to the as-
serted claims.
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
1. The judgment of invalidity of claims 14, 19, 24, 26,
27 and 30 of the ’628 patent is affirmed.
2. The case is remanded for the district court to revise
its judgment to clarify that the declaration of inva-
lidity is limited to claims 14, 19, 24, 26, 27, and 30
of the ’628 patent.
F OR THE COURT
March 14, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court

-- 2 of 2 --