This morning the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential opinions and one Rule 36 judgment. The first opinion affirms a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The second and third opinions affirm dismissals by the Court of Federal Claims. The last two opinions affirm decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.
In re McDonald (Nonprecedential)
The appellants are the four individuals named as inventors in U.S. Patent Application No. 15/454,677 (’677 application) and two corporations that assert that they are parties in interest defending the application. The application, titled “Tipping for Media Content,” is for a patent on a “method and system for eliciting and receiving tips from a consumer based on the consumer’s consumption of media content.” The patent examiner within the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) rejected each of the application’s claims 21–32—the claims now at issue—for ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and the PTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the rejection on both grounds. We affirm the Board’s decision on both grounds, each independently sufficient to support rejection of the claims.
Hooli v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Basavaraj Hooli (“Hooli”) appeals the final order of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing his action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Hooli v. United States, No. 23-879C, 2023 WL 4348838, at *1 (Fed. Cl. July 5, 2023). For the reasons below, we affirm.
Malone v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Eric Malone appeals a judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.
May v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
Peter J. May has appealed the Merit Systems Protection Board’s (“Board”) final order denying his petition for review and affirming the administrative judge’s (“AJ”) December 16, 2016 initial decision to dismiss Mr. May’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. May v. DOJ, No. NY-3443-16-0303-I-1, 2023 WL 491098 (M.S.P.B. Jan. 26, 2023). For the following reasons, we affirm.
Sanders v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
Cecil Allen Sanders, Jr., petitions for review of two Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) decisions. In the I-1 case, the Board dismissed Mr. Sanders’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In the A-1 case, the Board denied Mr. Sanders’s petition for attorney fees that he allegedly incurred in the I-1 case. We affirm both Board decisions.