This morning, the Federal Circuit released six nonprecedential opinions in three patent cases, a trademark case, a veterans case, and a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court also released a nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to order the Western District of Texas to transfer a patent case. And the court released five Rule 36 summary affirmances. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order, and a list of the summary affirmances.

Gree, Inc. v. SuperCell Oy (Nonprecedential)

GREE, Inc. (“GREE”) appeals the holding of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in a post-grant review initiated by Supercell Oy (“Supercell”) that claims 1–20 of GREE’s U.S. Patent Number 9,897,799 (“’799 patent”) are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

The Board, applying Alice Step 1, see Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014), held that the claims were directed to “the abstract idea of associating game objects and moving one or more of the objects.” Supercell Oy v. GREE, Inc., 2020 WL 2858715, at *9 (P.T.A.B. June 2, 2020) (“Board Op.”). Under Alice Step 2, the Board held that neither the independent nor the dependent claims included an inventive step and recited merely routine and conventional steps that did not capture the particular improvements disclosed in the specifications. Id. at *11, *13– 15. The Board thus held that all instituted claims were patent ineligible. Id. at *15. We review the Board’s determination of patent ineligibility absent factual disputes de novo. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2014). We see no error in the Board’s holding and thus affirm.

Puri v. Yogi Bhajan Administrative Trust (Nonprecedential)

Bibiji Inderjit Kaur Puri appeals from a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board) sustaining an opposition to her intent-to-use application under 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b) to register the character mark YOGI for various bath and beauty products. See Yogi Bhajan Administrative Trust v. Inderjit Kaur Puri, Opp. No. 91217913 (T.T.A.B. July 29, 2020) (Board Decision) (J.A. 1–20). The Board found that Ms. Puri had a pre-existing interest in the YOGI mark shared with the opposer, Yogi Bhajan Administrative Trust (YBAT), and therefore she “did not have a bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce solely in her individual capacity at the time she filed her [application] because, at such time, [Ms. Puri] was aware that both Opposer and [herself] each had an undivided and equal interest in the applied-for mark for the identified goods.” Id. at *20. Because the Board’s legal conclusions are without error and its factual findings are supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.

In re Votel (Nonprecedential)

Patent applicants Thomas Votel, Andrew Olson, and Dominique Aris (collectively “appellants”) appeal a decision of the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) affirming the Examiner’s rejection of their application under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We affirm.

Mares v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)

Appellant Anthony D. Mares (“Mares”) appeals a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”), affirming a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”), which denied his claim for entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus and erectile dysfunction. Mares v. Wilkie, No. 18-3159, 2019 WL 6885044 (Vet. App. Dec. 18, 2019). We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

FireBlok IP Holdings, LLC v. Hilti, Inc. (Nonprecedential)

FireBlok IP Holdings, LLC (“FireBlok”) appeals from a decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granting Hilti, Inc.’s (“Hilti”) motion for summary judgment of noninfringement. See FireBlok IP Holdings, LLC v. Hilti, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-00023-RWS-RSP, 2020 WL 1899620 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 2020) (the “Report and Recommendation”), adopted by No. 2:19-cv-00023- RWS-RSP, 2020 WL 948022 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 27, 2020) (the “Order”). Hilti cross-appeals from the court’s decision denying Hilti’s motions for attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (the “Section 285 Motion”) and sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 (the “Rule 11 Motion”). See FireBlok IP Holdings, LLC v. Hilti, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-00023-RWS-RSP, 2020 WL 3078038 (E.D. Tex. June 10, 2020) (the “Memorandum Order”). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm in all respects.

Copeland v. Army (Nonprecedential)

Christopher Copeland appeals a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. J.A. 9–10; see also Copeland v. Dep’t of the Army, No. DA-0752-19-0516-I-1, 2019 WL 5529895 (M.S.P.B. Oct. 23, 2019). Because the Board did not improperly dismiss, we affirm.

In re Western Digital Technologies, Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)

Western Digital Technologies, Inc. (“WDT”) petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Martin Kuster opposes. WDT replies.

* * *

Although we may have evaluated some of the factors differently, we are not prepared to say that the district court’s ultimate conclusion that the transferee venue was not clearly more convenient amounted to a clear abuse of discretion.

Rule 36 Summary Affirmances