Today the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion affirming in part, vacating in part, and remanding in part a case involving an interference between patent applications related to CRISPR-Cas9. The court also released two nonprecedential opinions in two pro se cases, four Rule 36 summary affirmances, and two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances and dismissals.
Broad Institute, Inc. v. Regents of the University of California (Precedential)
The Regents of the University of California, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively “Regents”) appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s determinations in a patent interference proceeding. The Broad Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the President and Fellows of Harvard College (collectively “Broad”) conditionally cross-appeal. After resolving preliminary motions, the Board issued a final decision concluding that Broad has priority over Regents with respect to a CRISPR-Cas9 system that contains a “singleguide” RNA that edits or cleaves DNA in eukaryotic cells. We affirm-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand as to the main appeal and dismiss as to the cross-appeal.
Shultz v. Department of Veterans Affairs (Nonprecedential)
Timothy M. Schultz petitions for review of a Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”) order denying his request for various types of damages. Schultz v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., No. CH-3330-17-0162-P-1, 2024 WL 3466940 (M.S.P.B. July 18, 2024). For the reasons below, we affirm.
Askan v. Faro Technologies, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Yoldas Askan appeals pro se from a district court decision dismissing his complaint with prejudice. We affirm.
Summary Affirmances
- Bruker Cellular Analysis, Inc. v. University of British Columbia
- Cupp Computing AS v. Stewart
- Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States
- Sydnexis, Inc. v. Eyenovia, Inc.