Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order in the cases challenging President Trump’s tarrifs. The order grants a motion to immediately issue mandates in the appeals. This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and one Rule 36 judgment. One of the opinions comes in an appeal of a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeals Board in an inter partes review proceeding. The other opinion comes in pro se appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to yesterday’s order and today’s opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.
Medivis, Inc. v. Novarad Corp. (Nonprecedential)
Medivis, Inc. (“Medivis”) appeals a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in an inter partes review challenging claims 1–6 and 11–20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,004,271 (“the ’271 patent”) owned by Novarad Corp. (“Novarad”). Medivis, Inc. v. Novarad Corp., No. IPR2023-00042, Paper 35, 2024 WL 967381 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2024) (“Decision”). The Board found that Medivis failed to show that (1) claims 1, 5, and 6 were unpatentable as anticipated; and (2) claims 1–6 and 11–20 were unpatentable as obvious. We affirm as to anticipation and reverse and remand as to obviousness.
Payne v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Joseph C. Payne appeals a judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims (the “Claims Court”) dismissing his complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. We affirm.
V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump (Nonprecedential Order)
Appellees move for the court to immediately issue the mandates in the above-referenced appeals. Appellants oppose and cross-move for an order staying the issuance of the mandates.