This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal, and one Rule 36 judgment. Both precedential opinions come in appeals in patent infringement cases, while both nonprecedential opinions come in pro se appeals of decisions of the Court of Federal Claims and the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissal and judgment.
VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corp. (Precedential)
VLSI Technology LLC (VLSI) appeals orders of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (1) granting Intel Corporation’s (Intel) motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,566,836 on two separate grounds and (2) striking the damages theories of one of VLSI’s damages experts. For the following reasons, we reverse-in-part, affirm-in-part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Definitive Holdings v. Powerteq (Precedential)
Definitive Holdings, LLC (“Definitive”) sued Powerteq LLC (“Powerteq”) for infringement of patent claims relating to reprogramming engine controllers. The United States District Court for the District of Utah granted Powerteq’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity under the pre-America Invents Act (“AIA”) version of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Definitive Holdings, LLC v. Powerteq LLC, 731 F. Supp. 3d 1243, 1251–62 (D. Utah 2024) (“Decision”). Definitive appeals, contending that the district court erroneously relied on inadmissible hearsay and that the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) on-sale bar should be limited to sales expressly disclosing the prior art device’s functionality. We affirm.
Aljindi v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Dr. Ahmad Aljindi comes before us, as he has several times before, seeking recovery from the United States based on allegations that he created, and the government stole from him, certain artificial-intelligence technology. In 2024, after other (related) suits brought by Dr. Aljindi had been dismissed, the Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) dismissed Dr. Aljindi’s present complaint, and the next year we affirmed that dismissal. Aljindi v. United States, No. 24-1997, 2025 WL 440123, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2025) (2025 CAFC Decision). Dr. Aljindi then returned to the Claims Court and filed a motion under the Claims Court’s Rule 60(b) seeking relief from the judgment. The Claims Court denied the motion, and after providing notice and an opportunity to respond, it entered an anti-filing injunction against him—forbidding new filings unless he was represented by counsel or got permission from the Chief Judge—and it certified, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that no appeal from that injunction would be taken in good faith. Aljindi v. United States, 178 Fed. Cl. 256, 264 (2025) (Injunction). Dr. Aljindi appeals and moves to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Construing his motion as challenging the Claims Court’s § 1915(a)(3) certification, we conclude that Dr. Aljindi’s appeal is frivolous, and we therefore dismiss.
Martin v. Department of Veterans Affairs (Nonprecedential)
Elizabeth J. Martin petitions for review of a Merit Systems Protection Board order finding the Department of Veterans Affairs in compliance with a settlement agreement and thus denying her petition for enforcement. For the reasons below, we affirm.