This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions: one in a patent case reviewing inter partes review decisions, one in another patent case addressing subject-matter jurisdiction, and one in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Late yesterday, the court also released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

Shamoon v. Resideo Technologies, Inc. (Nonprecedential)

This appeal is from two inter partes review (“IPR”) decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”), finding claims 1–11 and 13–22 of United States Patent No. 8,064,935 (“’935 patent”) unpatentable.1 The ’935 patent is now owned by Charles Shamoon, the inventor thereof. The patent had initially been assigned to Ubiquitous Connectivity, LP, of which Mr. Shamoon was president.

The IPR proceedings were requested by Resideo Technologies, Inc. and Central Security Group – Nationwide, Inc. (collectively “appellees”). The Director of the Patent and Trademark Office intervened to respond to the constitutional issues raised by Mr. Shamoon. We now affirm the decisions of the Board.

Pieczenik v. United States (Nonprecedential)

Dr. George Pieczenik brought claims of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,866,363 (“the ’363 patent”) against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed Dr. Pieczenik’s complaint, concluding that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims as pleaded. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm.

Shu v. United States Postal Service (Nonprecedential)

David Shu petitions for review of the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) in Shu v. U.S. Postal Service, Docket Nos. SF-0353-11-0065-X-1 and SF-0353-11-0065-C-1, slip op. (M.S.P.B. Nov. 7, 2022), which dismissed Mr. Shu’s petition for enforcement of the Board’s earlier September 25, 2014, decision in Shu v. U.S. Postal Service, Docket No. SF-0353-11-0065-B-2, slip op. (the “2014 Order”). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the Board’s final decision.