Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential orders. One vacates an order issued by the Court of Federal Claims and remands the case in view of a recent decision of the Supreme Court related to the constitutionality of a fee increase; one grants an unopposed motion to remand a case to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board based on an admission by the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office of error by the Board; one grants a joint motion to dismiss an appeal; and one dismisses an appeal for failure to prosecute. Here is the text from the orders and links to the dismissals.
Acadiana Management Group, LLC v. United States (Nonprecedential Order)
The appellants filed this action at the United States Court of Federal Claims, alleging an illegal exaction predicated on a fee increase resulting from implementation of a 2017 amendment to 28 U.S.C. § 1930. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, and this appeal followed. The parties now inform this court that the Supreme Court in Siegel v. Fitzgerald, 142 S. Ct. 1770 (2022), recently addressed the constitutionality of the fee increase from the 2017 amendment and the parties agree that “this Court should vacate the two orders that are the subject of the instant appeal [the order granting the government’s motion to dismiss and the order denying reconsideration] and remand . . . for proceedings not inconsistent with Siegel.” ECF No. 45 at 2. Upon consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The United States Court of Federal Claims’ November 30, 2020, order and May 6, 2021, order are vacated, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Siegel.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
In re Google LLC (Nonprecedential Order)
The Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office moves unopposed to remand for further proceedings.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the examiner’s rejection of claims in Google LLC’s patent application, finding certain claim limitations were conditional and that the examiner did not need to present evidence of anticipation of those limitations under the Board’s precedential decision in Ex Parte Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016).
In her motion, the Director states that the Board’s determination was erroneous and seeks remand for additional proceedings. Without taking a position on the underlying merits, we agree that remand is proper and could preserve party and judicial resources.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motion is granted, and the matter is remanded to the Board for further proceedings.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.