Opinions
on

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, three nonprecedential opinions, eight nonprecedential orders, and one Rule 36 summary affirmance. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The nonprecedential opinions come in two patent cases and one pro se case. Of the nonprecedential orders, one grants a motion for summary judgment; three transfer cases; and four dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders and a link to the summary affirmance.

Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (Precedential)

Lynk Labs, Inc. (“Lynk Labs”) appeals from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in an inter partes review (“IPR”) determining claims 7–13 and 15–17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,687,400 (“the ’400 patent”) unpatentable. We affirm.

This case presents the question of when a published patent application is deemed prior art in an IPR—can it be as of the application’s filing date, or only as of the application’s publication? As explained below, we agree with the Board that it is the former: under the statutory provisions applicable here, a published patent application can be deemed prior art in an IPR as of the application’s filing date. And, because we otherwise see no error in the Board’s unpatentability determinations, we affirm.

Forsythe v. Department of Homeland Security (Nonprecedential)

Jeffrey Forsythe was employed by the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS). When he left his job, he alleged that his resignation had been wrongfully forced, and in 2021 he and DHS settled the dispute. Under the settlement agreement, Mr. Forsythe was entitled to receive back pay for certain periods between 2017 and 2021. After DHS calculated his back pay based on earnings statements submitted by Mr. Forsythe, he filed a petition for enforcement of the settlement agreement before the Merit Systems Protection Board, asserting, among other things, that DHS miscalculated the back pay owed. The Board-assigned administrative judge (AJ) determined that DHS had partially breached the settlement agreement and ordered DHS to recalculate Mr. Forsythe’s back pay. DHS petitioned the full Board to review the AJ’s order to recalculate, and Mr. Forsythe cross-petitioned for review of other aspects of the AJ’s initial decision. The full Board granted DHS’s petition, vacated the AJ’s order requiring DHS to recalculate Mr. Forsythe’s back pay, and dismissed Mr. Forsythe’s cross-petition. Forsythe v. Department of Homeland Security, 2024 WL 1599152 (M.S.P.B. Apr. 11, 2024) (Final Order). On Mr. Forsythe’s appeal to us, we affirm.

Jasmin v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)

Richard Jasmin, proceeding pro se, appeals from an order of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.

Kids2, LLC v. TOMY International, Inc. (Nonprecedential)

TOMY International, Inc. (“TOMY”) appeals from a grant of summary judgment of non-infringement. See Summer Infant (USA), Inc. v. TOMY Int’l, Inc., 2023 WL 313959 (D.R.I. Jan. 19, 2023). Because there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the Summer Infant (USA) Inc. (“Kids2”)1 accused product infringes, we reverse and remand.

Summary Affirmance

Transfers

Dismissals

Rule 36 Judgment