This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s denial of motions to terminate and its unpatentability determinations. The Federal Circuit also released four nonprecedential orders. One transfers an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the District for the District of Columbia Circuit; one summarily affirms; and two dismiss appeals. Here is the introduction to the opinion, text from the orders, and links to the dismissals.

Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Brent (Precedential)

These appeals involve two inter partes review proceedings initiated by NVIDIA Corporation challenging two patents owned by Polaris Innovations Limited—U.S. Patent Nos. 6,532,505 and 7,405,993. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board determined that all challenged claims are unpatentable. Polaris appealed. We remanded the case due to Appointments Clause issues and it has now returned. We affirm.

Ahuruonye v. Department of the Interior (Nonprecedential Order)

Upon consideration of the parties’ responses to the court’s July 12, 2022, order agreeing that this appeal from a district court judgment over a claim of discrimination should be transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit,


Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, this matter and all transmittals are transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Mohammed v. United States (Nonprecedential Order)

Abdul Mohammed moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Having considered the complaint, the judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims, and Mr. Mohammed’s corrected opening brief, we summarily affirm.

Mr. Mohammed filed a one-page complaint at the Court of Federal Claims seeking $1,000,000 for the “illegal seizure” of his “tort complaint pending with the General Counsel of the Administrative Office [“AO”] of the United States Courts” by the “refus[al] to investigate Plaintiff’s torts complaint [and] to give any update.” Compl. at 1. The Court of Federal Claims granted Mr. Mohammed IFP status and sua sponte dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Mr. Mohammed appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

Pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), a court of the United States must dismiss an IFP action if the court determines that the action fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Summary affirmance is appropriate when the decision below “is so clearly correct as a matter of law that no substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal exists.” Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Here, the Court of Federal Claims was clearly correct that Mr. Mohammed’s complaint, even liberally construed, failed to identify any source of law that obligated the AO to investigate his tort allegations, let alone any statute, regulation, or contract that mandated compensation by the United States for failure to comply with the alleged obligation. See United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 290 (2009).

Mr. Mohammed characterizes the AO’s refusal to take action on his submission as a taking of his right to file a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). See Appellant’s Br. at 4–5; see also 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). But he makes no cogent, non-frivolous contention that the wrongs alleged afford Mr. Mohammed rights that can be vindicated at the Court of Federal Claims. In fact, Mr. Mohammed asserts that he can still bring an action under the FTCA if an “agency” “failed to issue a final decision within six months of the date that the claim was presented.” Appellant’s Br. at 5.

Additionally, Mr. Mohammed’s contention that the AO engaged in wrongful conduct in discharging official duties by failing to investigate and inform Mr. Mohammed about his claims clearly sounds in tort, such that the Court of Federal Claims could not grant him relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (no jurisdiction for claims arising in tort).



(1) The motion is denied as moot. No fee payment is required for this appeal.

(2) Mr. Mohammed’s corrected opening brief, ECF No. 10, is accepted for filing.

(3) The judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims is affirmed.

(4) Each side shall bear its own costs.