This morning, the Federal Circuit release two nonprecedential opinions. One opinion addresses a pro se appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The other opinion, which includes a concurrence-in-part and dissent-in-part from Judge Schall, addresses an appeal from a district court’s final judgment of invalidity with respect to the definiteness of certain patent claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.  

Soto v. McDonough (Nonprecedential Opinion)

Nelson Ortiz Soto appeals a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction.  For the following reasons, we affirm.

Mantissa Corp. v. First Financial Corp (Nonprecedential Opinion)

Mantissa Corporation (“Mantissa”) appeals from a final judgment of invalidity with respect to certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,361,658 (“’658 patent”).  We conclude that the district court correctly determined that the term “transaction partner” is indefinite and affirm the judgment of the district court that claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 10–12, and 15 of the ’658 patent are invalid for indefiniteness.  We also conclude that we lack the authority to determine whether the district court properly construed the term “OFF.”  We affirm.  

SCHALL, Circuit Judge, concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part.


In my view, the district court thus erred in holding independent claims 1 and 7 of the ’658 patent and the related dependent claims indefinite.  I would therefore reverse the decision of the district court and remand the case to the court for further proceedings.

Finally, the majority holds that, because there has been no final judgment relating to the district court’s construction of the term “OFF” appearing in claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 10–12, and 15 of the ’658 patent, we cannot consider that issue.  I agree with this holding.  Accordingly, I join that part of the majority opinion.

For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully concur-in-part and dissent-in-part.