Today the Federal Circuit a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and two nonprecedential opinions in two pro se cases. The court also released seven nonprecedential orders, two of which simply dismissed appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the orders other than the dismissals.
ParkerVision, Inc. v. Vidal (Precedential)
Intel Corporation petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) for inter partes review (IPR) of independent claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 7,110,444 (’444 patent), owned by ParkerVision, Inc. The Board determined that claim 3 is unpatentable as obvious, and ParkerVision appeals. Because the Board correctly construed the term “storage element” and did not procedurally err in how it treated certain arguments raised by the parties and because substantial evidence supports the challenged factual findings underpinning the obviousness determination, we affirm.
In re Starrett (Nonprecedential)
William Henry Starrett, Jr. appeals from a decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) affirming an examiner’s rejections of the pending claims of U.S. Patent Application 14/921,682 (“the ’682 application”) as directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and as anticipated under § 102, as well as the rejection of certain pending claims as indefinite under § 112(b). Ex parte William Henry Starrett Jr., No. 2021-000504, 2022 WL 1799367 (P.T.A.B. May 31, 2022) (“Decision”). For the following reasons, we affirm.
Rainey v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Donnie E. Rainey, II appeals pro se from a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“the Claims Court”) granting summary judgment in favor of the government that Rainey was not entitled to severance pay under 5 U.S.C. § 5595. Rainey v. United States, No. 22-511 C, 2023 WL 2062298 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 17, 2023) (“Decision”). For the following reasons, we affirm.
Norton v. Commissioner of Social Security (Nonprecedential Order)
William Charles Norton appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York affirming the denial of his application for Child Disability Benefits under the Social Security Act. In response to this court’s September 29, 2023, order to show cause, the Commissioner of Social Security urges either dismissal or transfer to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Mr. Norton has not responded.
Mascorro v. San Diego County (Nonprecedential Order)
Eloy Mascorro appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California’s dismissal of his complaint asserting civil rights violations against California state entities. Because it appeared we lacked jurisdiction, we directed the parties to show cause why this case should not be transferred or dismissed. In response, Mr. Mascorro requests transfer to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, stating that was where he intended his appeal to be heard. ECF No. 5 at 3.
Collier v. United States (Nonprecedential Order)
The United States moves to summarily affirm the judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing Irina Collier’s complaint. Ms. Collier responds and files several motions for various relief, including consolidation of this case with Appeal No. 2023-2420.
Golden v. United States (Nonprecedential Order)
The United States moves for summary affirmance of the judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims. Larry Golden opposes the motion and separately moves for relief from the judgment. The United States opposes Mr. Golden’s motion. Mr. Golden replies. For the following reasons, we grant the United States’ motion to summarily affirm and deny Mr. Golden’s motion.
Wicks v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential Order)
Because Anjanette Wicks asserted before the Merit Systems Protection Board that her removal was in violation of federal antidiscrimination laws and indicated that she did not wish to abandon her discrimination claims on judicial review, this court directed the parties to show cause why this case should not be transferred. Ms. Wicks has not responded. The Board requests transfer to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. See ECF No. 12 at 6–7.