Opinions
on

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. One of the opinions comes in a patent cases addressing claim construction. The other also comes in a patent case, this one challenging instructions the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office had given to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board related to its authority to decline petitions for inter partes review. The court also released three nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in an appeal of a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; the second comes in a patent infringement case and addresses an award of enhanced damages; and the third comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit also released nine nonprecedential orders. Three transfer matters; three dismiss appeals; one remands a case; and two deny petitions for writs of mandamus. Finally, the court also released a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders other than dismissals, along with links to the dismissals and Rule 36 judgment.

Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC (Precedential)

DivX, LLC, owns U.S. Patent No. 10,225,588, which claims systems and methods for streaming partly encrypted media content. After DivX sued Netflix, Inc., alleging infringement of the patent, Netflix successfully petitioned the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to institute an inter partes review (IPR) of all claims of the patent, whose subject matter Netflix asserted would have been obvious over specified prior-art references. Now before us is a final written decision of the PTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board in which the Board panel’s majority, over a dissent, adopted a disputed claim construction and on that basis rejected Netflix’s obviousness challenge. Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, IPR2020-00558, 2024 WL 734765, at *4–10, *12–14 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2024) (2024 Decision). On Netflix’s appeal, we reverse the Board’s claim construction, vacate the Board’s decision, and remand for further proceedings consistent with the claim construction we adopt.

Apple Inc. v. Squires (Precedential)

This case returns to us after a decision by the district court rendered on remand from our decision in Apple Inc. v. Vidal, 63 F.4th 1 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (2023 CAFC Decision). The subject of the case, brought in 2020, was a challenge by Apple Inc. and four other companies (collectively, Apple) to certain instructions that the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO or Office) had given to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) to govern how the Board, as the Director’s delegatee, would exercise the Director’s statutory, discretionary authority to decline to institute inter partes review (IPR) proceedings under 35 U.S.C. ch. 31 (§§ 311–19), added to the Patent Act by the America Invents Act (AIA), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011). Seeking relief under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706, Apple asserted that the instructions led to too many non-institution decisions (denying too many IPR opportunities to challenge patents asserted against it in court) and were legally defective in three respects: they were contrary to 35 U.S.C. ch. 31, arbitrary and capricious, and issued without formal notice-and-comment rulemaking as defined by the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 553. After the district court held all of Apple’s challenges to judicially unreviewable, we held in 2023 that the first two challenges were unreviewable but the third was not, and we therefore remanded for consideration of the rulemaking-process (§ 553) challenge. 2023 CAFC Decision, at 11– 18. On remand, the district court rejected the challenge, holding that the instructions did not have to be issued through notice-and-comment rulemaking. Apple Inc. v. Vidal, No. 20-CV-06128, 2024 WL 1382465 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2024) (2024 District Court Decision). Apple appeals.

We hold, in agreement with the district court, that the Director’s instructions are a “general statement of policy” exempted from notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures by the express terms of § 553(b). Congress provided no legal right to institution of an IPR, which is just one of several mechanisms for adjudicating challenges to patents. The challenged pronouncements at issue are simply instructions to the Board for how, as the Director’s delegatee, it should exercise in the first instance the Director’s statutory discretionary authority not to institute an IPR. The non-institution authority of the Director is statutorily insulated from judicial review, at least when, as relevant here, no constitutional claim is presented. And the instructions do not even purport to bind the Director, who has always retained the authority to make the non-institution decision even after an initial Board decision as delegatee. Based on those characteristics taken together, we affirm the district court’s decision that notice-and-comment rulemaking was not required for the challenged instructions.

Google LLC v. Wildseed Mobile, LLC (Nonprecedential)

Google LLC (“Google”) petitioned for inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1–22 of U.S. Patent No. 10,869,169 (“the ’169 patent”). In a final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) concluded that claims 1–14 and 16–22, but not claim 15, are unpatentable as obvious. Google LLC v. Wildseed Mobile, LLC, No. IPR2023-00247, Paper No. 33, 2024 WL 2819590 (P.T.A.B. June 3, 2024) (“Final Written Decision”). Google appeals the Board’s determination that claim 15 is not unpatentable. For the reasons set forth below, we vacate and remand.

SynQor, Inc. v. Vicor Corporation (Nonprecedential)

SynQor, Inc. (“SynQor”) filed suit against Vicor Corp. (“Vicor”) for infringement of several patents, including U.S. Patent No. 7,564,702 (“’702 patent”), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. A jury found that Vicor indirectly and willfully infringed two claims of the ’702 patent by selling its direct-current–direct current (“DC-DC”) converters to customers and awarded $6.5 million in damages.

The district court denied Vicor’s post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) of noninfringement, holding that the jury’s verdict was supported by substantial evidence. The district court also granted SynQor’s post-trial motions for enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees, increasing SynQor’s award to $25 million. We affirm the district court’s judgment, finding that the jury’s infringement verdict and willfulness finding were supported by substantial evidence and that the district court’s orders awarding enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees were not an abuse of discretion.

Pollitt v. United States (Nonprecedential)

Anthony L. Pollitt, Jr. appeals the United States Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For the following reasons, we affirm.

Davis v. Burbank Police Department (Nonprecedential Order)

In response to this court’s show cause order, Cintarius Jamal Davis urges transfer to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Burbank Police Department and City of Burbank have not filed a response.

Nwosu v. Boduc (Nonprecedential Order)

Adaeze Nwosu filed this suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, seeking $1 billion and alleging breach of contract, torts, and violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After the district court dismissed the complaint and denied Ms. Nwosu’s motion to vacate the judgment, Ms. Nwosu filed an appeal directed to this court. On November 26, 2025, the court directed the parties to address this court’s jurisdiction. None of the parties have filed a response.

In re Johnson (Nonprecedential Order)

Abraham Johnson petitions this court for a writ of replevin to “correct” the United States District Court for the District of Columbia’s purported “failure to act” on his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 2 at 1, pending in that court since July 2025.

In re Datonics, LLC (Nonprecedential Order)

Datonics, LLC appeals from a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board rejecting certain patent application claims based on double patenting and patent eligibility. Stating that the Board erred in its analysis, ECF No. 9 at 2, the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) moves without opposition to remand for further proceedings before the agency. Without drawing any conclusions regarding the merits of the appeal, the court agrees that remand here would preserve party and judicial resources.

In re Garner (Nonprecedential Order)

In December 2025, this court affirmed the judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing Theresa Garner’s complaint related to her retirement benefits. She now petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the Office of Personnel Management to take various actions, including correcting records and entitling her to a certain annuity multiplier and credits towards times served.

In re Griffin (Nonprecedential Order)

William S. Griffin, III filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking the court to compel the Merit Systems Protection Board to decide his motion for default judgment and find the agency’s failure to respond to that motion constitutes waiver of its opposition. The next day, the administrative judge issued an initial decision denying all relief requested by Mr. Griffin and dismissed his appeal. That decision states that it will become final on February 20, 2026, unless Mr. Griffin files a petition for the Board’s review by that date. And it further describes how he may seek judicial review.

Dismissals

Rule 36 Judgment