This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, four nonprecedential opinions, seven nonprecedential orders, and four Rule 36 judgments. One of the precedential opinions comes in an appeal from a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and discusses the role of the doctrine of foreign equivalents in translating a mark in a foreign language. The other precedential opinion comes in an appeal from a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Two of the nonprecedential opinions come in pro se appeals of decisions of the Court of Federal Claims, one of the other nonprecedential opinions comes in a pro se appeal in a patent infringement case, and the last nonprecedential opinion comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Five of the orders deny petitions for writs of mandamus, while the other two dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders denying petitions, along with links to dismissals and Rule 36 judgments.
In re Bayou Grande Coffee Roasting Co. (Precedential)
Bayou Grande Coffee Roasting Company (Bayou) appeals a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board) decision affirming the examiner’s refusal to register the mark KAHWA for cafés and coffee shops. We reverse.
International Business Machines Corporation v. Zillow Group, Inc. (Precedential)
International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) appeals from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) decision holding claims 1–4, 12–16, and 18–19 in U.S. Patent No. 7,631,346 (’346 patent) unpatentable. See Ebates Performance Mktg., Inc. v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., No. IPR2022-00646, 2023 WL 7358027, at *1 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 11, 2023) (Decision). Zillow Group, Inc. and Zillow, Inc. (collectively, Zillow) cross-appeal the Board’s decision holding claims 5–11, 17, and 20 not unpatentable. Id. We affirm both the appeal and cross-appeal.
Wilbanks v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Jerry Wilbanks enlisted in the Army National Guard and, for several short periods between 1966 and 1971, served on active duty and active duty for training. Respondent’s Supplemental Appendix (S. Appx.) 15–17. Many years later, he sought disability benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), asserting serviceconnected disabilities associated with herbicide exposure in Vietnam or Cambodia. S. Appx. 12. VA’s Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) denied the claim, and that denial was affirmed by the United States Court of Veterans Claims (Veterans Court). See Wilbanks v. McDonough, No. 23-4818, 2024 WL 4849015 (Vet. App. Nov. 21, 2024) (2024 Decision). Mr. Wilbanks appeals. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Doe v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Nonprecedential)
Jane Doe filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which was established by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (“Vaccine Act”). Ms. Doe sought review of a special master’s decision awarding her monetary damages. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed Ms. Doe’s motion for review as untimely filed and subsequently denied her motion for reconsideration. For the reasons below, we affirm.
Pop Top Corp. v. Rakuten Kobo Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Pro se Appellant Rohit Chandra appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California adding him as a debtor to an existing judgment against his company, Pop Top Corp. (“Pop Top”). S.A. 17-28. Mr. Chandra also moves for sanctions against Appellee Rakuten Kobo Inc. (“Kobo”) and its counsel, ECF No. 30, and a stay of collection of the judgment against him, ECF No. 48. We lack jurisdiction over Mr. Chandra’s appeal due to his failure to file a timely notice of appeal. We therefore dismiss his appeal and deny his motions.
Booker v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Romal D. Booker appeals an order of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”), which dismissed his petition for a writ of mandamus as moot. Booker v. McDonough, No. 24-5379, 2024 WL 4452066, at *1–2 (Vet. App. Oct. 9, 2024) (“Decision”). Because we lack jurisdiction over the appeal, we dismiss.
Garner v. United States (Nonprecedential Order)
Theresa Garner appeals the decision of the Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) dismissing her complaint. For the following reasons, we affirm.
In re Sandisk Technologies, Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC sued Western Digital Technologies, Inc. for infringement of three patents related to flash memory systems. Western Digital and Sandisk Technologies, Inc. (a former Western Digital subsidiary, now independent entity) petitioned for inter partes review (“IPR”) of the patents. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) declined to institute IPR, noting “the challenged patents have been in force for approximately nine, twelve, and twelve years, creating strong settled expectations,” and finding Petitioners had not “provide[d] any persuasive reasoning why [IPR] is an appropriate use of [Patent Trial and Appeal] Board resources.” Appx2. Sandisk and Western Digital now seek a writ of mandamus to vacate and direct the PTO to reconsider the non-institution decisions.
In re Bremmer (Nonprecedential Order)
Consistent with longstanding traditions of the federal courts system, “our jurisdiction is limited to the review of final decisions of the Veterans Court,” Allen v. Principi, 237 F.3d 1368, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (emphasis omitted), which does not include orders of that court granting extensions of time. To the extent Ms. Bremmer is seeking mandamus relief, she has not shown material, let alone egregious, delay on her appeal or a clear and indisputable right to relief.
In re Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (Nonprecedential Order)
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC and Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC (collectively, “Comcast”) petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to set aside the district court’s denial of Comcast’s motion to dismiss or transfer for improper venue. Sandpiper CDN, LLC opposes the petition. Comcast replies.
In re Highlevel, Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
HighLevel, Inc. petitioned for inter partes review (“IPR”) of patents owned by Etison LLC, doing business as ClickFunnels (“ClickFunnels”). The Patent Trial and Appeal Board declined to institute IPR proceedings. HighLevel now seeks a writ of mandamus directing the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) to vacate and reconsider the institution decisions. We deny that request for relief.
In re Cambridge Industries USA Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. petitioned for inter partes review (“IPR”) of Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.’s patents. Applied Optoelectronics asked the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) to exercise its discretionary authority and deny institution. The PTO agreed as to two of Cambridge’s petitions based on the “Patent Owner’s settled expectations as to the [challenged] patents” that “have been in force for nine and seven years.” Appx3. Cambridge now petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the PTO to reconsider its non-institution decisions.