This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and six nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion, which earned a dissent from Judge Reyna, addresses an appeal of a judgment of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board cancelling registration of a trademark. One of the nonprecedential opinions addresses an appeal from a judgment of noninfringement of a patent by a district court, while the other addresses an appeal from a judgment of a district court dismissing a patent infringement claim due to claim preclusion. Two of the orders transfer cases, one denies a motion for writs of mandamus for various relief, and three dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions, selected text from orders, and links to the dismissals.

Great Concepts, LLC. v. Chutter, Inc. (Precedential Opinion)

Great Concepts, LLC (“Great Concepts”) appeals the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) decision cancelling registration of its trademark, “DANTANNA’S,” due to the filing of a fraudulent declaration by a former attorney for Great Concepts.  The attorney submitted the false declaration to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) in connection with Great Concepts’ effort to obtain incontestable status for its registered trademark.  Because the pertinent part of the applicable statute limits the Board’s authority to cancel registration of a mark to circumstances in which the “registration was obtained fraudulently,” and here there is no claim that this occurred, the Board was not permitted to cancel Great Concepts’ trademark.  Thus, we reverse and remand.

REYNA, Circuit Judge, dissenting.

Today, the majority instructs the Patent and Trademark Office that it is without authority to cancel a trademark registration in situations where a registrant defrauds the agency with false declarations intended to deceive the agency into granting incontestable rights for its continued use of a mark.  It instructs the agency, and the general public, that there exists a milepost in the trademark administrative continuum, a green-light, beyond which inequitable conduct is encouraged by the promise of great gain with little to no meaningful risk to the registrant.  But there is harm.  First, this court should be wary not to excuse fraud that is undertaken at any stage within an administrative process.  Second, this court must recognize that the grant and protection of intellectual property rights involves a pact with the general public.  This case represents a violation of that pact.

Dali Wireless Inc. v. Commscope Technologies LLC (Nonprecedential Opinion)

Dali Wireless Inc. appeals from a stipulated judgment of noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,682,338 following an adverse claim construction ruling from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.  For the following reasons, we agree with the district court that the “translating” limitation is not conditional and agree with the district court’s constructions of the “packetizing” and “routing and switching” limitations.  We therefore affirm the district court’s noninfringement judgment.

Ottah v. Verifone System Inc. (Nonprecedential Opinion)

Chikezie Ottah appeals a decision from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissing his patent infringement claim as barred by claim preclusion.  For the following reasons, we affirm.

In re Rush (Nonprecedential Order)

Thomas L. Rush has filed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing various relief.  He also moves to proceed in forma pauperis with regard to the petition.

* * *



The petition and all pending motions are denied.

Rogers v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential Order)

Having considered the parties’ responses to the court’s July 24, 2023, order to show cause, we now transfer the case to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. 

Goode v. Cook (Nonprecedential Order)

Jason Goode filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut raising claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 relating to his imprisonment.  After the district court granted summary judgment against his claims, Mr. Goode filed this appeal.  In response to this court’s July 31, 2023, order to show cause, the appellees urge dismissal of this appeal.  Mr. Goode “argues for the proper transfer[] of this case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.”  ECF No. 16 at 1.

* * *



The appeal and all its filings are transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.