This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and six nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal in a patent case involving a challenge to a claim construction and addresses the use of extrinsic evidence in consideration of the claim construction. The nonprecedential opinion addresses a petition for review of a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Of the six orders, one transfers an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the remaining five orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions, selected text from the transfer order, and links to the dismissals.

Actelion Pharmaceuticals LTD v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Precedential Opinion)

The issue on appeal in this patent case is the meaning of “a pH of 13 or higher.”  More specifically, the issue involves understanding what the significant digits are for “a pH of 13.”  The district court did not address extrinsic evidence, including textbooks, explaining how a person of ordinary skill in the art would view the significant digits for a pH value.  Because this is a case where the district court must address the extrinsic evidence to understand how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim language, we vacate the district court’s claim construction order with respect to the term “a pH of 13 or higher” and the judgment of infringement, and remand for the district court to consider the extrinsic evidence and its impact on claim construction.

Pirkkala v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential Opinion)

Steven P. Pirkkala petitions for review of a Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) final order dismissing Mr. Pirkkala’s appeal of his removal action for being untimely filed without showing good cause for the delay.  Pirkkala v. Dep’t of Just., No. AT-0752-15-0454-M-1, 2022 WL 1230838 (M.S.P.B. Apr. 26, 2022) (“Final Order”).  We affirm.

Alonso v. Quan (Nonprecedential Order)

Christopher K. Alonso filed this suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against five California Superior Court judges, asserting violations of his civil rights.  After the district court dismissed his complaint, Mr. Alonso filed a notice of appeal that was transmitted to this court.  Because it appeared we lacked jurisdiction, we directed the parties to show cause why this case should not be transferred or dismissed.  Having now considered Mr. Alonso’s response, we transfer.




This appeal and all transmittals are transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.