This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions, one nonprecedential order, and six Rule 36 summary affirmances. One of the opinions addresses an appeal challenging several orders of a district court in a patent case. Another of the opinions challenges a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding. The other two opinions address appeals from judgments of the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The nonprecedential order denies a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to direct the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to vacate an order staying proceedings. Here are the introductions to the opinions, selected text from the order, and links to the summary affirmances.
Bhagat v. Patent and Trademark Office (Nonprecedential Opinion)
Urvashi Bhagat (“Bhagat”) appeals several orders from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia: requiring Bhagat to file paper motions to the court, rejecting her requests for discovery enlargement and rescheduling of the pretrial conference, denying her request to file a second amended complaint, denying her request to exclude an expert, granting defendant United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (“PTO”) partial motion to dismiss Bhagat’s causes of action unrelated to patentability, denying her request to strike the PTO’s motion for summary judgment and granting that motion finding that Bhagat’s patent claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 103. Bhagat also asserts various due process violations against the district court. We affirm.
D3D Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (Nonprecedential Opinion)
D3D Technologies, Inc. (“D3D”) owns U.S. Patent No. 9,980,691 (“the ’691 patent”), which is at issue in D3D Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 6:20-cv-01699 (M.D. Fla). In this appeal, D3D challenges the Final Written Decision (“FWD”) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in an inter partes review proceeding initiated by petitioner Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”). In the FWD, the Board found claims 1–9 and 11–21 of the ’691 patent rendered obvious by the prior art combination of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0279569 (“Acosta”) and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0059214 (“Tomoda”). Microsoft Corp. v. D3D Techs., Inc., IPR2021-00878, 2022 WL 17254077 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2022) (“Final Written Decision”). For the reasons stated below, we affirm.
Sheiman v. Department of the Treasury (Nonprecedential Opinion)
Michael E. Sheiman petitions for review of the May 24, 2022 Final Order of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) that sustained the action of the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS” or “agency”) that removed Mr. Sheiman from his position as a GS-13 Senior Appraiser in Honolulu, Hawaii. Sheiman v. Dep’t of the Treasury, No. SF-0752-150372-I-2, 2022 WL 1667885 (M.S.P.B. May 24, 2022); J.A. 1–23. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). For the reasons stated below, we affirm.
Jarog v. McDonough (Nonprecedential Opinion)
Eugene W. Jarog appeals from an order of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“the Veterans Court”) dismissing his appeal from the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“the Board”) as untimely. Jarog v. McDonough, No. 22-4229, 2022 WL 14770657 (Vet. App. Oct. 26, 2022) (“Decision”). For the reasons detailed below, we dismiss Jarog’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
In re Agadia Systems Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
Agadia Systems Inc. (“Agadia”) petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) to vacate its order staying proceedings. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) opposes. We deny the petition.