Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions and three nonprecedential orders. All four nonprecedential opinions come in patent cases. Of the nonprecedential orders, one remands a case, one summarily affirms a decision by a lower court, and the other two dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders and links to the dismissals.
WSOU Investments LLC v. F5, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
WSOU Investments LLC, dba Brazos Licensing and Development—hereafter Brazos—owns U.S. Patent No. 7,548,945, which claims systems and methods for distributing certain network traffic across multiple devices. Brazos sued F5, Inc., fka F5 Networks, Inc., alleging infringement of the patent. Claim-construction proceedings produced a claim-construction order that adopted a construction of the “master device” claim limitation in accordance with Brazos’s own arguments. F5 then moved for summary judgment of noninfringement, and the district court granted the motion, determining that no reasonable jury could find that F5 practiced the “master device” limitation as construed in the claim-construction order. WSOU Investments, LLC v. F5 Networks, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-01878-BJR, 2022 WL 17601874 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 13, 2022) (Summary Judgment); J.A. 51–63; J.A. 64.
Brazos appeals, challenging only the district court’s interpretation of the “master device” limitation. We hold that Brazos’s claim-construction argument on appeal is forfeited, and we see no good reason to excuse the forfeiture. Brazos does not contend that summary judgment was improper under the district court’s construction. Accordingly, we affirm.
Xerox Corp. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Xerox Corporation (Xerox) appeals a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) holding claims 1–5, 7–11, 13–17, 19, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,208,439 unpatentable. Because we affirm the Board’s decision holding all claims of the ’439 patent unpatentable as obvious in Xerox Corporation v. Snap, Inc., No. 2023-1967 (Fed. Cir. April 17, 2025), we dismiss this appeal as moot.
Xerox Corp. v. Snap Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Xerox Corporation (Xerox) appeals a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) holding claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,208,439 unpatentable. We affirm.
Xerox Corp. v. X Corp. (Nonprecedential)
Xerox Corporation (Xerox) appeals a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) holding claims 1–5, 7–11, 13–17, 19, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,208,439 unpatentable. Because we affirm the Board’s decision holding all claims of the ’439 patent unpatentable as obvious in Xerox Corporation v. Snap, Inc., No. 2023-1967 (Fed. Cir. April 17, 2025), we dismiss this appeal as moot.
Montejo v. Department of Labor (Nonprecedential Order)
The parties jointly move to remand for the arbitrator to more adequately explain the basis of his decision. ECF No. 21. The Department of Labor also moves unopposed to stay briefing pending consideration of the remand motion. ECF No. 21.
The parties note the arbitrator’s decision “amounted” to a determination that a “‘time-served’ suspension” was appropriate without addressing the reasonableness of the suspension in light of the factors set forth in Douglas v. Veterans Admin., 5 MSPB 313 (1981), as required by Greenstreet v. Social Security Admin., 543 F.3d 705 (Fed. Cir. 2008). ECF No. 20 at 3–5.
Upon consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motion for remand is granted to the extent that the arbitrator’s decision is vacated, and this case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the motion and this order.
(2) The motion to stay is denied as moot.
Scott v. United States (Nonprecedential Order)
In these appeals, the United States moves to summarily affirm the judgments of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing Navarra S. Scott’s complaints alleging religious discrimination and violations of free speech and what the court understood as a “copyright infringement claim, purportedly asserted on behalf of God.” Appeal No. 2025-1352, ECF No. 4, Appx003. Ms. Scott opposes and submits several filings of her own, including her opening briefs.
Summary disposition is appropriate here because there is no “substantial question regarding the outcome” of the appeals. Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, limits the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims to claims for money damages against the United States based on sources of substantive law that “can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Government.” United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 290 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court of Federal Claims was clearly correct that Ms. Scott could not sue in that court based on alleged violations of the First Amendment because that amendment is not money-mandating. United States v. Connolly, 716 F.2d 882, 887 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The court was also clearly correct that it lacked jurisdiction over claims against states or state entities. See United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941). Finally, for the reasons explained in its dismissal order, the trial court was clearly correct that Ms. Scott had not plausibly alleged copyright infringement.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motions are granted. The judgments of the United States Court of Federal Claims are summarily affirmed.
(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.