Opinions
on

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released one precedential order, three nonprecedential opinions, four nonprecedential orders, and an errata. The precedential order comes in a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to order the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to vacate an order deinstituting an inter partes review proceeding. Two of the orders deny similar petitions of writs of mandamus. All three nonprecedential opinions come in pro se appeals, two from the Merit Systems Protection Board and one from the Court of Federal Claims. The remaining two orders dismiss appeals. Here are introductions to the opinions and links to the orders and the errata.

In re Motorola Solutions, Inc. (Precedential Order)

At the request of Motorola Solutions, Inc., the Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted inter partes review (IPR) of Stellar, LLC’s patents. But on review, the then-Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) deinstituted the IPRs, concluding such review would not be an efficient use of resources given the ongoing parallel district court proceedings between the parties involving the patents. Motorola now petitions this court for mandamus relief, arguing that the Acting Director violated certain procedural protections guaranteed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution in doing so. We deny the petition.

Miles v. United States (Nonprecedential)

Harry Edwin Miles filed this action in the Court of Federal Claims “against the United States and forty-six federal judges and prosecutors.” SAppx82. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed Miles’ complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Miles appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). We affirm.

Boyd v. Department of the Treasury (Nonprecedential)

Former Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) employee Heather A. Boyd petitions for review of a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“the Board”), which affirmed the dismissal of her appeal in SF-0752-15-0128-I1. S.A. 1–10. For the following reasons, we dismiss her appeal as untimely filed.

Woodroof v. Department of Commerce (Nonprecedential)

Rosanne Woodroof was employed by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at the U.S. Department of Commerce (agency) until the agency terminated her employment in 2015. She appealed her removal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or Board). In 2016, she and the agency entered into a settlement agreement, which included a confidentiality provision, and the Board dismissed the appeal based on the agreement. In 2017, in a separate matter brought by another complainant against Commerce, Ms. Woodroof testified as a witness called by the complainant. At the hearing in that matter, Ms. Woodroof answered questions about her pre-removal performance-improvement (PIP) plan, and Commerce, on cross-examination, asked her questions about those plans and her removal.

In 2018, Ms. Woodroof petitioned the Board to enforce the 2016 settlement agreement, arguing that the agency violated the confidentiality provision during its cross-examination by asking questions regarding those topics. As relevant to Ms. Woodroof’s appeal before us, Ms. Woodroof also requested discovery and a status conference. The Board’s administrative judge did not grant the two process requests and denied Ms. Woodroof’s enforcement petition. Woodroof v. Department of Commerce, No. DC-0432-15- 0585-C-1, 2019 WL 917395 (M.S.P.B. Feb. 19, 2019) (Initial Decision); J.A. 12–18. The full Board vacated the Initial Decision but also denied the petition for enforcement, finding no material breach of the agreement based on a provision permitting disclosure to the Board and on Ms. Woodroof’s voluntary testimony about her PIPs. Woodroof v. Department of Commerce, No. DC-0432-15-0585-C-1, 2024 WL 2796996, at *2 (M.S.P.B. May 30, 2024) (Final Decision). On Ms. Woodroof’s petition for review to our court, we now affirm.

In re Google LLC (Nonprecedential Order)

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, “Samsung”) and Google LLC jointly petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of patents owned by Cerence Operating Company. The then-Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, through her delegee, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, denied the petitions, concluding such review would be an inefficient use of resources given the progress of parallel district court proceedings involving Cerence’s assertion of the same patents. Google and Samsung now petition for a writ of mandamus. We deny the petition.

In re SAP America, Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)

SAP America, Inc. petitioned for inter partes review (“IPR”) of patents owned by Cyandia, Inc. The then-Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, through her delegee, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, denied the petition, concluding such review would be an inefficient use of resources given the progress of parallel district court proceedings between the parties involving the same patent. SAP now petitions for a writ of
mandamus.

Dismissals

Errata