Late Friday, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, and one Rule 36 summary affirmance. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Southern District of Ohio. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, one comes in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, one comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and one comes in a patent case appealed from the Western District of Michigan. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as links to the dismissal and summary affirmance.
Ridge Corp. v. Kirk NationaLease Co. (Precedential)
Kirk NationaLease Co. (“Kirk”), Altum LLC (“Altum”), and Truck & Trailer Parts Solutions, Inc. (“TTPS”) (collectively, the “KNL defendants”) appeal an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granting preliminary injunctive relief. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse and remand.
Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Parus Holdings, Inc., owns U.S. Patent No. 6,721,705, which describes and claims a voice-operated system for browsing the Internet. As relevant here, Parus also owns two other patents descended from the ’705 patent. Google LLC successfully petitioned the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) for inter partes reviews (IPRs) of the ’705 patent and related Parus patents under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–19. In its petitions, Google challenged various claims on obviousness grounds, asserting similar prior-art combinations and rationales for obviousness. In the two non-’705 IPRs of relevance, the PTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board held all challenged claims unpatentable for obviousness, and we summarily affirmed those Board decisions in 2025. In contrast, in the IPR of the ’705 patent, which is now before us, the Board determined that Google had failed to show the unpatentability of the claims at issue (claims 1 and 2). Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc., No. IPR2022-00279, 2024 WL 3625783, at *1 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 1, 2024) (’705 Decision). Google appeals. We vacate the Board’s decision and remand for further proceedings.
Shaheed v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Mr. Salahudin Shaheed appeals the United States Court of Federal Claims’ decision granting the Government’s motion to dismiss his breach of contract claim. Specifically, the trial court determined that Mr. Shaheed failed to allege that he entered a bailment contract with the United States. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.
Fritz v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Mr. David S. Fritz, a veteran of the U.S. Air Force, proceeding pro se, appeals an order from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) dismissing his claims. Fritz v. Collins, No. 25-6047, 2025 WL 3458348, at *1–2 (Vet. App. Dec. 2, 2025) (Decision). The Veterans Court determined it lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Fritz’s appeal, because an appeal of a fully favorable Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) decision does not satisfy the “case or controversy” requirement. Id. at *1. We determine that the Veterans Court’s jurisdictional review was proper and affirm the court’s dismissal.
Tramec Sloan LLC v. Surti (Nonprecedential)
Tarun N. Surti appeals a decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan to the extent it denied his motion to dismiss or transfer venue. Because the decision of the district court is neither a final judgment nor otherwise properly before us, we dismiss.