This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, three nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion affirms in part a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which dismissed a complaint for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. The first nonprecedential opinion affirms a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board, the second affirms a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the third vacates and remands another judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The order is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the order.

Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. United States (Precedential)

The Chemehuevi Indian Tribe appeals the United States Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of each Count of its second amended complaint. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of all Counts for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction but vacate the trial court’s dismissal of Count III for failure to state a claim.

Koke v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)

Eric John Koke appeals pro se a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) that denied his petition for review of and affirmed the administrative judge’s initial decision dismissing Mr. Koke’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Koke v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. PH-0752-17-0202- I-1, 2023 WL 3482734 (M.S.P.B. May 16, 2023) (Appx. 1–7) (Board Decision);1 Koke v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. PH-0752- 17-0202-I-1, 2017 WL 3011853 (M.S.P.B. July 13, 2017) (Appx. 11–20) (Initial Decision). For the following reasons, we affirm.

Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Quectel Wireless Solutions Co. (Nonprecedential)

Koninklijke Philips N.V. (Philips) owns U.S. Patent No. 8,134,929, which describes and claims methods for controlling transmission power based on channel conditions in a communication system. After Philips sued Quectel Wireless Solutions Co. Ltd. for infringing the patent, Quectel successfully sought an inter partes review (IPR), under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319, of claims 1, 2, 9–11, 15, 16, 18, 22–24, 31–33, 36, 37, and 39 of the patent. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board, in its final written decision in the review, determined that all challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Quectel Wireless Solutions Co. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., No. IPR2021- 00561, 2022 WL 4581868 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 29, 2022) (Decision). Philips appeals, presenting arguments all dependent on challenging the Board’s claim construction. Exercising our jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A), we affirm.

Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc. (Nonprecedential)

Roku, Inc. (“Roku”) appeals the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) holding that claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 10,325,486 (“’486 patent”) are not unpatentable as obvious. Because the Board’s holding is premised on an erroneous claim construction, we vacate and remand.