This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and five nonprecedential orders. The opinion comes in a pro se appeal of a dismissal of a complaint against the Patent and Trademark Office. One of the orders denies a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to transfer patent cases; one transfers a case to a federal district court; the third grants a motion to remand a patent case to a district court; and the last two dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinion and first three orders and links to the dismissals.
Perry v. United States Patent and Trademark Office (Nonprecedential)
Moshe Avram Perry appeals from the order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissing his complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). This is the third suit filed by Mr. Perry asserting that he is entitled to relief for actions taken by the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the third appeal to this court. Because we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s dismissal of Mr. Perry’s complaint or in the judge’s decision to not recuse herself, we affirm.
In re Catanzaro (Nonprecedential Order)
David J. Catanzaro petitions for a writ of mandamus. Specifically, Mr. Catanzaro asks to compel “transfer” of his patent cases from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania “pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a),” because “the current venue has proven structurally incapable of providing timely or impartial adjudication.” ECF No. 2 at 3. We deny the petition.
Pleasant v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential Order)
On September 23, 2025, this court ordered the parties to address whether this case belongs in federal district court. Natasha Pleasant, through counsel, says no. The Merit Systems Protection Board says yes, and so do we.
Emm Innovations LLC v. Remind101, LLC (Nonprecedential Order)
EMM Innovations LLC notifies the court that the parties “have agreed to a settlement that will resolve all disputes related to EMM’s claims in the litigation” and moves unopposed to remand “for the purpose of seeking vacatur of the Order Granting Remind101[, LLC]’s Motion to Dismiss that was the basis of this appeal.” ECF No. 11 at 3.