This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and five nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinions come in patent cases, one appealed from the Northern District of Georgia and the other from the Middle District of Florida. Both nonprecedential opinions come in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. As for the orders, one concerns an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board; one addresses a petition for a writ of mandamus in a patent case being handled by the District of Utah; and one addresses an interlocutory appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The final two orders dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders as well as links to the dismissals.
Epic Tech, LLC v. Pen-Tech Associates, Inc. (Precedential)
Pen-Tech Associates, Inc. (Pen-Tech) appeals an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denying Pen-Tech’s motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and motion for attorneys’ fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and the court’s inherent power. Because the court’s order provides insufficient detail to permit meaningful review, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.
ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc. (Precedential)
ParkerVision, Inc. (“ParkerVision”) appeals a judgment of non-infringement the district court entered for Qualcomm Incorporated and Qualcomm Atheros, Inc. (together, “Qualcomm”). Because there is no final judgment, we lack jurisdiction and dismiss the appeal. We also deny ParkerVision’s request that on remand the case be reassigned to a different judge.
In re WSOU Investments LLC (Nonprecedential)
WSOU Investments LLC appeals the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Board reversed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–11, 18, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 9,357,014 and entered a new ground of rejection based on obviousness in view of the same prior art reference. WSOU filed a response seeking “reopening of prosecution” under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)(2). After finding WSOU’s response deficient for reopening prosecution, the Central Reexamination Unit returned the response to the Board for consideration as a request for rehearing. The Board then denied rehearing and entered its final rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Wang v. Viking Drill & Tool, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Hongjia Wang appeals from two final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board determining all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,007,583 are unpatentable. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Kani-Goba v. Department of Health and Human Service (Nonprecedential Order)
Gibao E. Kani-Goba appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board, challenging the agency’s decision to remove him from federal service. The Board affirmed his removal and found that Mr. Kani-Goba “did not allege facts [in the underlying hearing] that would support a finding of a race motive for his removal.” ECF No. 2 at 36. Mr. Kani-Goba petitions for review and indicates he wishes to pursue that discrimination claim. In response to this court’s show cause order, the agency urges dismissal. Mr. Kani-Goba urges this court to hear his case. ECF No. 11-7.
In re Medical Components, Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
Medical Components, Inc. (“MedComp”) petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the District of Utah to, inter alia, order all asserted patent claims invalid for lack of novelty. C.R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. (collectively, “Bard”) oppose the petition. MedComp replies.
Schofield v. Collins (Nonprecedential Order)
On July 30, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims granted the Secretary of Veterans Affairs an extension of time to respond to Preston Leonard Schofield’s petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus. On August 3, 2026, Mr. Schofield filed a “Petition for a Writ of Certiorari” at the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims asking this court, inter alia, to review the decision granting the time extension and to direct the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to rule on all pending motions. That court docketed the filing as a notice of interlocutory appeal and transmitted it to this court, noting that the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has not yet entered judgment in the case. ECF No. 1-2 at 35.