This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Both of the nonprecedential opinions come in appeals from the Court of Federal Claims, one in a government contract case and one in a vaccine case. The nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order.
In re Forest (Precedential)
Donald Forest submitted U.S. Patent Application No. 15/391,116 (’116 application), entitled “Apparatus for Selecting from a Touch Screen,” to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Patent Office) on December 27, 2016. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed in part the examiner’s rejection of certain claims of the ’116 application under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and nonstatutory double patenting. See Ex parte Forest, No. 2021-003780, 2022 WL 4234201, at *26 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 12, 2022). Mr. Forest appeals.
The ’116 application claims priority, through a chain of earlier-filed patent applications, to an application filed on March 27, 1995—meaning, if the ’116 application were to issue as a patent, then its expiration date would be twenty years later in 2015. See 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(2). Mr. Forest does not dispute that he filed his ’116 application more than a year after any resulting patent’s 2015 expiration date. The Patent Office raises a threshold issue it characterizes as a jurisdictional matter: it contends that, given the circumstances, Mr. Forest has no personal stake in this appeal because he cannot be granted any enforceable rights by a patent grant with zero term. In response, Mr. Forest argues that he would still acquire “provisional rights” under 35 U.S.C. § 154(d) if the Patent Office issues him an expired patent, but he does not contest the jurisdictional consequence if his understanding of section 154 is incorrect. Because we disagree with Mr. Forest’s reading of the statute, we dismiss the appeal.
Textron Aviation Defense LLC v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Textron Aviation Defense LLC (“Textron”) appeals from a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims granting the government’s motion to dismiss Textron’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and, in the alternative, for summary judgment. Textron Aviation Def. LLC v. United States, 161 Fed. Cl. 256 (2022) (“Decision”). The Court of Federal Claims found Textron’s complaint was time-barred by the Contract Dispute Act’s six-year statute of limitations. Id. at 275. For the reasons explained below, we affirmthe grant of summary judgment by the Court of Federal Claims.
Walters v. Sec. of Health and Human Services (Nonprecedential)
On November 16, 2015, Ansel Walters and Shakima Davis-Walters (“Petitioners”) filed a claim under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (“Vaccine Act”). In their claim, they sought compensation for injuries allegedly suffered by their minor son K.S.S.W. as the result of the administration of a diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis (“DTaP”) vaccine on January 16, 2013. On April 18, 2023, the Special Master assigned to the case issued a decision denying entitlement to compensation. Walters v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 15-1380V, 2023 WL 3750716 (Fed. Cl. Sp. Mstr. April 18, 2023), J.A. 1–46. The Special Master found that Petitioners had failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that K.S.S.W.’s present condition (seizures, developmental delays, and cortical visual impairment) was caused by the vaccine he received. J.A. 45. Petitioners timely moved for review of the Special Master’s decision in the Court of Federal Claims. On July 31, 2023, the court affirmed the Special Master’s decision. Walters v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 15-1380V, 2023 WL 5274006 (Fed. Cl. July 31, 2023), J.A. 48–61. Petitioners have timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(f) and 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). For the reasons stated below, we affirm.
Spero v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.(Nonprecedential Order)
Upon consideration of Yechezkal Evan Spero’s motion to voluntarily dismiss Appeal No. 2025-1065 pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) and the parties’ agreement as to the allocation of costs,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motion is granted. Appeal No. 2025-1065 is dismissed. The revised official caption for the remaining appeal, Appeal No. 2025-1145, is reflected in this order.
(2) Each party shall bear its own costs as to Appeal No. 2025-1065.
(3) Appellees’ response brief(s) in Appeal No. 2025- 1145 remain due no later than April 28, 2025.
(4) The Clerk of Court shall transmit a copy of this order to the merits panel assigned to Appeal No. 2025-1145.