Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. This morning, the court released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and four nonprecedential orders denying petitions for writs of mandamus. The precedential opinion comes in a trade case on appeal from the Court of International Trade. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case addressing eligibility on appeal from a district court. Of the denials of petitions, three relate to petitions seeking to order the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to vacate non-institution decisions on petitions for inter partes review. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders denying petitions, along with links to the dismissals.
Performance Additives, LLC v. United States (Precedential)
Plaintiff-Appellant, Performance Additives, LLC, (hereinafter, “Performance”) appeals from the final judgment of the U.S. Court of International Trade insofar as it denied judgment for Performance’s drawback claim entry BI00004498-1. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5).
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute v. Amazon.com, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and CF Dynamic Advances LLC (together, “Rensselaer”) brought suit against Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”) in the Northern District of New York for infringement of United States Patent No. 7,177,798 (the “’798 patent”). Amazon countersued for a determination that the ’798 patent was directed to patent ineligible subject matter. The district court granted summary judgment for Amazon, determining that the ’798 patent claimed ineligible subject matter under the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). We affirm.
In re Intel Corp. (Nonprecedential Order)
USTA owns U.S. Patent No. RE47,720, which relates to increasing spectrum in a wireless network.
Several months before Intel sought IPR, the PTO ordered ex parte reexamination (“EPR”) of the ’720 patent. In a non-final office action in March 2025, the examiner rejected the challenged claims. The following month, Intel filed the present IPR petition, arguing, inter alia, that the challenged claims would have been obvious over a prior art reference (Walton) in combination with other references. In June 2025, USTA filed in the EPR its response to the office action and a disclosure statement containing Intel’s petition and Walton. In July 2025, the PTO issued a reexamination certificate and ended the EPR.
In October 2025, the PTO discretionarily denied institution of Intel’s IPR petition. It agreed with Intel that the examiner did not appear to consider Walton during the EPR and that Walton is material to at least one of the challenged patent claims. However, the PTO determined that, under the circumstances, “the most efficient process for the Office” is “not to refer the [p]etition” to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but for Intel “to file a reexamination request that includes Walton.” Appx2. Intel now seeks mandamus relief to compel the PTO to vacate its non-institution decision and reconsider institution.
In re Kabir (Nonprecedential Order)
In the underlying patent infringement case, the district court revoked Dr. Azad Alamgir Kabir’s privileges for filing documents electronically using the Alternate Document Submission (“ADS”) system, after finding he had “abused the ADS system and burdened the Clerk of Court with numerous filings that are not capable of being docketed.” Dkt. No. 192 at 5–6. He now petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking, among other things, to transfer or reassign the case to “ensure reliable docket access.” Pet. at 5.
In re Tessel, Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
Tessell, Inc. sought inter partes review (“IPR”) of patents owned by Nutanix, Inc. that name Tessell’s founders and employees as inventors. The Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) denied institution, determining review would not be an appropriate use of agency resources. Tessell now seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the Director to vacate those decisions and order further proceedings. The Director and Nutanix oppose. We deny Tessell’s petition.
In re Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co. (Nonprecedential Order)
Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (“KCT”) petitions this court for a writ of mandamus challenging the denial of its requests for institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) of Skyworks Solutions, Inc.’s patents. The Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) and Skyworks oppose the petition.