This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. Both come in cases appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, with one dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the other a takings case. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential opinions, both in patent cases, one appealed from a district court and one from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Lastly, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.
Hamilton v. United States (Precedential)
Jernice Hamilton, appearing pro se, appeals from the United States Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) decision dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Hamilton v. United States, No. 23-2153 (Fed. Cl. May 20, 2024); S. App’x 4–12.1 For the following reasons, we affirm.
Sauer West LLC v. United States (Precedential)
Plaintiffs, landowners in Colorado, brought suit against the United States, seeking compensation for an alleged temporary taking pursuant to the National Trail Systems Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1247(d), based on the issuance of a Notice of Interim Trail Use (“NITU”) by the Surface Transportation Board (“STB”). The Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) granted the government’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the issuance of the NITU in the circumstances was the cause of a taking. See Sauer W., LLC v. United States, 168 Fed. Cl. 49, 83 (2023) (“Sauer I”). We affirm.
ABC Corporation I v. Partnership and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (Nonprecedential)
Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. and Unicorn Global, Inc. (collectively, Appellants) sued Urbanmax, Gaodeshang-US, Gyroor-US, Gyroor, FengchiUS, Gyroshoes, and HGSM (collectively, Appellees) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for alleged infringement of design patents related to hoverboards. The district court granted Appellees’ motion for summary judgment of non-infringement, reasoning that the Appellees’ hoverboard products were not substantially similar to Appellants’ design patents. Hangzhou Chic Intell. Tech. Co. v. Gyroor, 711 F. Supp. 3d 966, 969 (N.D. Ill. 2024) (Decision). We find no reversible error in the district court’s determinations and affirm its grant of summary judgment of non-infringement.
RFCyber Corp v. Stewart (Nonprecedential)
RFCyber Corp. (RFCyber) appeals the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) finding all claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,240,009 (’009 patent) unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on grounds asserted in an inter partes review petition filed by Apple Inc. (Apple). Apple Inc. v. RFCyber Corp., No. IPR2022-00413, 2023 WL 5167264 (P.T.A.B. July 18, 2023) (Decision). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). We affirm.