Opinions
on

Today the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions in employment, veterans, and patent cases. The court also released seven orders. Five granted summary affirmances and two dismissed all of one case and part of another. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the summary affirmances and dismissals.

Ziegler v. Department of the Interior (Nonprecedential)

Victor Ziegler appeals from the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“the Board”) denying his petition for enforcement and dismissing his Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (“USERRA”) claims for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.

Sheppard v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)

William Sheppard argues that the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims misinterpreted 38 C.F.R. § 20.101(d) (2018) (since amended and renumbered to 38 C.F.R. § 20.104(c)). We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because the Veterans Court determined in the alternative that any error is harmless, and we do not have jurisdiction to review the Veterans Court’s harmless-error determination. Conway v. Principi, 353 F.3d 1369, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2004); 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).

Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Bel Fuse Inc. (Nonprecedential)

Nearly three years after the district court closed this case, appellant Halo Electronics, Inc., (“Halo”) moved for prejudgment interest and for a new damages trial. The district court denied that motion. Halo filed a notice of appeal following the denial of its motion, but Halo now asks us to dismiss its own appeal because, in its view, the underlying judgment is not final. The appellees (collectively, “Pulse”) ask us to dismiss the appeal because the district court entered what the appellees deem to be a final judgment in September 2017 and therefore this appeal is time-barred. We dismiss the appeal on the ground that no final order was entered by the district court.

Konda v. Flex Logix Technologies, Inc. (Nonprecedential)

Venkat Konda owns U.S. Patent No. 8,269,523, titled “VLSI Layouts of Fully Connected Generalized Networks.” SAppx. 49. Flex Logix Technologies, Inc. challenged various claims of the ’523 patent in two inter partes reviews in the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). For all challenged claims, Flex Logix asserted unpatentability based on the teachings of a provisional application filed by Konda, which, Flex Logix argued, was public prior art because it was incorporated by reference into a public, prior-art application filed publicly by Konda pursuant to the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). The PTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board, in its consolidated final written decision in the reviews it instituted, ruled, in agreement with Flex Logix, that the provisional application and PCT application were public prior art that rendered all challenged claims unpatentable for either anticipation or obviousness. Flex Logix Technologies, Inc. v. Konda, Nos. IPR2020-00260, IPR2020-00261, 2021 WL 3265741 (P.T.A.B. July 29, 2021).

Mr. Konda appeals, presenting only the issue of whether the provisional application (containing essential relied-on teachings) was public. Specifically, he contends that the PTO keeps provisional applications confidential, that he did not waive the confidential status, and that the provisional application therefore was not publicly available and could not be prior art. We reject Mr. Konda’s contention, and we therefore affirm the Board’s decision.

Rule 36 Judgments

Dismissals