Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released two opinions, one precedential and one nonprecedential, both in patent cases and both addressing obviousness. Additionally, the court released five nonprecedential orders, one transferring a case to another court, one summarily affirming a judgment, one granting a motion to remand a case, and two dismissing appeals. Additionally, the court released four summary affirmances and an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders and links to the dismissals, summary affirmances, and the erratum.

In re Couvaras (Precedential)

John L. Couvaras appeals from a decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) affirming an Examiner’s rejection of the pending claims of U.S. Patent Application 15/131,442 as unpatentable as obvious in view of the asserted prior art. In re: John L. Couvaras, No. 2022-001037, 2021 WL 6124743 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 24, 2021) (“Decision”). For the following reasons, we affirm.

In re Universal Electronics, Inc. (Nonprecedential)

Universal Electronics, Inc. filed U.S. Patent Application No. 14/282,785, claiming priority to 2006. After Universal cancelled a number of claims, the assigned examiner in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected all the remaining claims (claims 1 and 12–16) for obviousness, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (pre-2011 version), in light of three prior-art references: Gardner (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2008/0319852), Hu (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2013/0304817), and Drayson (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2013/0276010). The Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the examiner’s rejections. Universal timely appeals. We have jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A); 35 U.S.C. § 141(a). We affirm.

Goodrich v. Department of the Army (Nonprecedential Order)

The government responds to the court’s April 5, 2023, order urging the court to transfer Timothy Goodrich’s petition for review as it relates to Goodrich v. Army, PH-0752- 21-0270-I-1, and to otherwise dismiss as premature. Mr. Goodrich has not filed a response.

* * *


(1) The court transfers the petition as applied to PH0752-21-0270-I-1 and all transmittals to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 and dismisses the petition as to SF-844E-22-0380-I-1.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs as to the dismissed matter.

Gray v. United States (Nonprecedential Order)

Michele Gray has appealed from the United States Court of Federal Claims’ judgment dismissing her complaint. She now moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. For the following reasons, we summarily affirm.

* * *


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

(2) All pending motions are denied as moot.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.

Whitacre v. Department of the Navy (Nonprecedential Order)

The Department of the Navy moves without opposition to waive the requirements of Federal Circuit Rule 27(f) and to remand this case for further adjudication so that the Merit Systems Protection Board “can reconsider its decision.” Mot. at 1. Specifically, the Department contends that the court should remand so that the Board can address, in the first instance, Mr. Whitacre’s argument that the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudication Facility and the Personnel Security Appeals Board committed a harmful procedural error in revoking his security clearance eligibility without first allowing Mr. Whitacre to provide new information.

Upon consideration thereof,


(1) The motion is granted. The case is remanded to the Board to reconsider its decision consistent with the motion and this order.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.


Rule 36 Judgments