This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and three nonprecedential orders. The opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the International Trade Commission in a patent case. One of the three orders transfers an appeal; another grants a motion for an extension of time to file response; and the third denies a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to order the Patent and Trademark Office to vacate a decision not to institute an inter partes review proceeding. Here are the introductions to the opinion and orders.
Apple Inc. v. International Trade Commission (Precedential)
In September 2020, Apple Inc. (“Apple”) launched the Apple Watch Series 6 (“Apple Watch”), which included a feature capable of estimating the wearer’s blood oxygenation level. Nine months later, in June 2021, Masimo Corporation and Cercacor Laboratories, Inc. (collectively, “Masimo”) filed a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”), under § 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended (“Tariff Act”), alleging that Apple’s importation and sale of the Apple Watch infringed several Masimo patents covering wearable blood oxygen measurement devices. In its complaint, Masimo charged that Apple was unlawfully engaged in unfair trade practices in violation of the Tariff Act. The Commission instituted an investigation and found that Masimo proved Apple did, in fact, violate § 337 by importing, selling, and offering for sale Apple Watch models that incorporated the blood oxygen functionality covered by Masimo’s patents. Accordingly, the Commission issued a limited exclusion order (“LEO”) barring importation of the infringing Apple Watches. Apple now appeals. Finding no error in the Commission’s domestic industry determination, its validity rulings, or its infringement findings, we affirm.
Jarrett v. Archibald (Nonprecedential Order)
Appellants Ernest L. Jarrett and Ernest L. Jarrett, P.C. brought suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against a former client from a wrongful death suit alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, deprivation of attorney fees, conspiracy, breach of implied contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Appellants then filed an appeal directed to this court from the district court’s final judgment dismissing the complaint. On January 22, 2026, this court directed the parties to show cause why this case should not be dismissed or transferred for lack of jurisdiction. No party has responded.
Polinski v. United States (Nonprecedential Order)
Mr. Polinski’s complaint asserts that he mailed a certified check for $36,000,000 to the New York State Treasurer. Alleging that the United States Treasury somehow unlawfully failed to redeem the financial instrument, the complaint claims an unlawful taking of property, violations of various statutes, and violations of the Due Process Clause as well as the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Thirteenth Amendments. He further raised claims of misappropriation, negligence, and embezzlement. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and frivolousness. Mr. Polinski now appeals.
In re Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. sought inter partes review (“IPR”) of Longhorn Automotive Group LLC’s patent in response to being sued for infringement. After concluding IPR would not be an appropriate use of agency resources, the Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) granted Longhorn’s request for discretionary denial. Volkswagen now petitions this court for a writ of mandamus seeking to vacate the non-institution decision and to direct the USPTO to reconsider institution without regard to discretionary considerations. The Director and Longhorn oppose.