Opinions
on

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. This morning, the court released two nonprecedential opinions, four nonprecedential orders, and an errata. One of the two opinions comes in a patent infringement case; the other comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. One of the four orders transfers a matter; another dismisses a petition for a writ of mandamus; and the other two dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the first order and links to the dismissals and the errata.

Zip Top, Inc. v. SC Johnson & Son Inc. (Nonprecedential)

ZipTop, Inc. (ZT) appeals a decision from the Northern District of Illinois granting summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of SC Johnson & Son Inc. (SCJ). Zip Top, Inc. v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., No. 22-C-5208, 2024 WL 989380 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 7, 2024). ZT maintains that SCJ’s Ziploc® Endurables™ products (the Accused Products) infringe United States Patent No. 11,383,890. The ’890 patent discloses a process for making a container from molded silicone. The Accused Products are reusable silicone containers.

SCJ’s primary noninfringement theory is that the Accused Products do not include a “spout.” Before the district court, the Parties agreed that the spout claim element is properly construed as a “distinct feature that directs liquids from and facilitates the pouring of fluid from a container.” See J.A. 4019; J.A. 8. But ZT objects to another limitation imposed by the district court: “the zipper members are not the spout or part of it; rather, the spout is a separate feature.” ZT Opening Br. at 17; see J.A. 12. Based on its construction of the spout element, the lower court ultimately found the Accused Products do not include this feature and it granted summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of SCJ. J.A. 12–13, 18.

We now review the construction of the claims in the ’890 patent and determine whether the properly construed claims map to the Accused Products.

Thundathil v. Collins (Nonprecedential)

Christina Thundathil appeals a decision from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) dismissing her appeal as untimely. S. Appx. 1. Because we lack jurisdiction over Ms. Thundathil’s arguments on appeal, we dismiss.

In re Mitchell (Nonprecedential Order)

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed Otis D. Mitchell’s civil rights complaint against state and local officials. He subsequently filed a document at this court that appears to seek appellate relief in that civil rights case.

Dismissals

Errata