This morning, the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential opinions and six nonprecedential orders. Two of the five opinions come in patent cases, one appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and one from a district court; two come in pro se appeals of decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board; and the fifth comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Two of the six orders deny petitions for writs of mandamus; two transfer appeals; another affirms a judgment; and one dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to all the opinions and orders other than the dismissal, along with a link to the dismissal.
Katana Silicon Technologies LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Katana Silicon Technologies LLC appeals from three final written decisions of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board in inter partes reviews of U.S. Patent Nos. RE38,806 and 6,352,879. In its final written decisions, the Board held claims 1–33 of the ’806 patent and claims 1–15 of the ’879 patent unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In making that determination, the Board adopted a claim construction Katana challenges on appeal. Because we adopt the Board’s construction, we affirm the Board’s decisions.
In re Hybir, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
In this appeal from a final judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, holding ineligible patent owner Hybir, Inc.’s asserted claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, only Hybir has appeared and submitted a brief. The defendant and would-be appellee, Veeam Software Corp., has declined to file a brief defending the judgment in its favor. See Defendant-Appellee’s Notice of Non-Participation, ECF No. 10 (“Pursuant to terms agreed upon by the parties, Veeam has an option to resolve the dispute related to the patent-in-suit following the conclusion of the present appeal. Accordingly, Veeam will not file a responsive brief and will not participate in oral argument.”). The terms of Veeam’s nonparticipation were revealed only after the court requested a copy of any agreement between the parties. See Order, ECF No. 24; Settlement and Limited Patent License Agreement (Settlement Agreement), ECF No. 25.
Craddock v. Department of Veterans Affairs (Nonprecedential)
Ms. Mary Agnes Craddock, a pro se litigant, appeals from a Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) Decision dismissing her Individual Right of Action (IRA) appeal. Craddock v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., No. NY-1221-24-0221- W-1, 2025 WL 994269 (M.S.P.B. Mar. 27, 2025) (Decision) (J.A. 4–20). After considering Ms. Craddock’s arguments alleging retaliatory action by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for certain whistleblower-protected disclosures, an administrative judge (AJ) found the VA demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same actions regardless of Ms. Craddock’s protected activity. Id. at 9. The Initial Decision was not appealed and became the final decision of the Board on May 1, 2025. See ECF No. 1. Because the Board’s findings are supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.
Jones v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
Darin A. Jones petitions for review of a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board denying his request to reopen his 2012 appeal from his termination as an employee of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. On March 13, 2026, we directed Mr. Jones and the Board to file supplemental briefs addressing whether this court lacks jurisdiction over Mr. Jones’s appeal to us in light of the bar on our jurisdiction in mixed cases, 5 U.S.C. §§ 7702, 7703(b)(1)(A), (b)(2); see Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 582 U.S. 420, 431–32 (2017), and also whether, if jurisdiction is lacking, we should dismiss Mr. Jones’s appeal to us for want of jurisdiction or should transfer the matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Order, ECF No. 44 (Mar. 13, 2026). Mr. Jones, then the Board, each filed a brief in response.
Hooper v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Seth A. Hooper, proceeding pro se, appeals from the final decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims denying his petition for extraordinary relief in the form of a writ of mandamus. To the extent that Mr. Hooper raises a non-frivolous legal question within our limited jurisdiction, we affirm.
In re Arbit (Nonprecedential Order)
Petitioners Ehud Arbit and Issac Rubinstein (“Petitioners”), defendants in an action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, seek a writ of mandamus directing the district court to vacate its December 27, 2025 order disqualifying Banner & Witcoff, Ltd. and Saiber, LLC (collectively, “Counsel”) from representing Petitioners in the underlying action. Dr. Ziv Harish, plaintiff in the district court, opposes. For the following reasons, we deny the petition.
In re Yang (Nonprecedential Order)
Nadja Yang petitions for a writ of mandamus to, among other things, direct the United States Court of Federal Claims to grant her motion for leave to file a brief amicus curiae in Education Creditor Trust v. United States, No. 1:24-cv-00775-EGB. We deny the petition.
In re Abrams (Nonprecedential Order)
Rosalind C. Abrams files a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel certain actions by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in her underlying federal employment discrimination case.
Lawson v. United States (Nonprecedential Order)
Angeliina Lynn Lawson appeals from the final judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing her case for lack of jurisdiction. In response to this court’s show cause order, the United States urges the court to summarily affirm the decision, while Ms. Lawson asks this court to allow the appeal to proceed.
Jones v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential Order)
The appeal is transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.