Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion reversing, vacating, and remanding a case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders. The first grants a motion to remand appeals to the Court of Federal Claims. The others are dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion, the introduction to the order remanding appeals, and the links to the dismissals.

Speck v. Bates (Precedential)

Ulrich Speck and Bruno Scheller (collectively, “Speck”) appeal from a Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“Board”) final judgment in Interference No. 106,125, which entered judgment for Brian L. Bates, Anthony O. Ragheb, Joseph M. Stewart IV, William J. Bourdeau, Brian D. Choules, James D. Purdy, and Neal E. Fearnot (collectively, “Bates”) on the issue of priority.

The interference proceeding concerned U.S. Patent Application No. 14/013,591 (“’591 application”), owned by Bates (the senior party), and U.S. Patent No. 8,257,305 (“’305 patent”), owned by Speck (the junior party). In the interference proceeding, Speck filed two motions relevant to its appeal. Speck argued (1) that the claims of the ’591 application were time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 135(b)(1) and (2) that the claims of the ’591 application are invalid for lack of written description. The Board denied those motions and awarded priority to Bates. We conclude that the Board erred in finding that the ’591 application was not time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 135(b)(1), and do not reach the written description issue. We reverse, vacate, and remand.

Local Initiative Health Authority for Los Angeles County v. United States (Nonprecedential Order)

The United States moves without opposition to remand these appeals to the United States Court of Federal Claims for the parties “to consider alternatives to further litigation or, in the alternative, for the Court of Federal Claims to reexamine its judgments in light” of Community Health Choice, Inc. v. United States, 970 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020). ECF No. 55 at 2. Having considered the motion, we agree with the parties that remand is appropriate.