Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders. One vacates a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board based on the absence of a live controversy; one summarily affirms a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims; and one dismisses an appeal from a federal district court for failure to prosecute. Here is text from the orders and a link to the dismissal.

Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Biogen MA, Inc.(Nonprecedential Order)

Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Biogen MA Inc. filed a joint status report on October 17, 2022, detailing the Supreme Court’s denial of Biogen’s petition for certiorari in the companion case, Biogen Int’l GmbH v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 18 F.4th 1333, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 2022 WL 4652058, at *1 (Oct. 3, 2022). In the companion case, Appeal No. 1933, this court found the ’514 patent invalid for lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Accordingly, in this appeal, Appeal No. 20-1673, both parties agree that there is an absence of a live controversy and ask that this court vacate the Board’s final written decision and remand with instructions to dismiss the IPR. In light of our precedent, we agree with the parties that this appeal is moot and the underlying final written decision should be vacated. See Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.com, Inc., 976 F.3d 1316, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (vacating Board decisions on patentability and remanding with instructions to dismiss IPRs as to those claims because a district court’s invalidation of those claims rendered the appeal moot (citing United States v. Munsingwear, Inc. 340 U.S. 36, 39–41 (1950))).

Upon consideration thereof,


(1) The Board’s final written decision issued on February 2, 2020 is vacated.

(2) The Board is instructed to dismiss the inter partes petition.

Kaetz v. United States (Nonprecedential Order)

William F. Kaetz 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. Kaetz’s opening brief, we summarily affirm.

* * *



(1) ECF No. 15 is accepted as Mr. Kaetz’s opening brief.

(2) The judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing the complaint is affirmed.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.