Today, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, three nonprecedential opinions, and three nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office and addresses whether a patent is unpatentable as anticipated by, or obvious in view of, asserted prior art. One of the nonprecedential opinions involves a pro se litigant seeking review of a final decision of the Merit System Protection Board. The second nonprecedential opinion, also litigated pro se, addresses an alleged violation of the First Amendment. The final nonprecedential opinion involves an appeal from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision regarding the patentability of claims. The three nonprecedential orders deny petitions for writs of mandamus. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.
Incept LLC v. Palette Life Sciences, Inc. (Precedential)
Incept LLC owns U.S. Patent Nos. 8,257,723 (“the ’723 patent”) and 7,744,913 (“the ’913 patent”). It now appeals from two final written decisions of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) holding the claims of the ’723 patent and the ’913 patent unpatentable as anticipated by, or obvious in view of, the asserted prior art. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Anoruo v. Department of Veterans Affairs (Nonprecedential)
Dr. Joseph C. Anoruo seeks review of the Merit Systems Protection Board’s (“MSPB” or “Board”) final decision denying his request for corrective action. We affirm the Board’s decision.
Greene v. United States (Nonprecedential)
In January 2023, Mr. Greene filed a complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) alleging the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California violated his First Amendment rights and committed slander by sending him mail that referred to him as a “Vexatious Litigant.” Appx. 21. The Claims Court concluded it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the alleged First Amendment violations and tort claims and dismissed the complaint. Id. Mr. Greene subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration to vacate the judgment and amend his complaint, seeking to pursue a different claim, this time for breach of an implied contract by the United States government. Appx. 18–20. Specifically, it appears Mr. Greene claims he had an oral agreement with an unnamed employee at the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to transfer a case of his, but the Ninth Circuit instead remanded his case to district court. Appx. 22. The proposed amended complaint did not identify in what way the unnamed court employee had authority to bind the government in contract, let alone any of the other conditions for establishing an implied contract. See, e.g., Lewis v. United States, 70 F.3d 597, 600 (Fed. Cir. 1995). The Claims Court denied his motion because it concluded Mr. Greene’s proposed amendment was futile. Appx. 22–23. Mr. Greene appealed the denial of his motion.
We do not discern any abuse of the Claims Court’s discretion in denying Mr. Greene’s motion. See Renda Marine, Inc. v. United States, 509 F.3d 1372, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (explaining that both a motion for leave to amend a complaint and a motion for reconsideration are reviewed for abuse of discretion). We agree with the court (Appx. 22–23) that Mr. Greene’s motion failed to describe “a non-frivolous allegation of a contract with the government,” Engage Learning, Inc. v. Salazar, 660 F.3d 1346, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (emphasis omitted), and that given the insubstantial nature of Mr. Greene’s implied contract allegation, the amended complaint would have been futile, see Lewis, 70 F.3d at 603. Accordingly, the Claims Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Greene’s motion.
Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Vidal (Nonprecedential)
Steuben Foods, Inc. appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s final written decision on remand determining that claims 18 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 6,945,013 are unpatentable. For the following reasons, we affirm.
In re Apple Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
Apple Inc. petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to vacate the order denying transfer and to transfer the case from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (“WDTX”) to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (“NDCal”). For the reasons below, we deny the petition.
In re Amy R. Gurvey (Nonprecedential Order)
Amy R. Gurvey petitions for a writ of mandamus to “disqualif[y]” the magistrate judge and district court judge, vacate the district court’s orders “retroactive to 2012,” and direct that her case be transferred. ECF No. 2-1 at 21–22.
* * *
Under the circumstances, we dismiss, having concluded that it would not be in the interest of justice to transfer to the Second Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The petition is dismissed.
In re Realtek Semiconductor Corp. (Nonprecedential Order)
This petition for a writ of mandamus is from a patent infringement suit brought by ParkerVision, Inc. against Realtek Semiconductor Corporation in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
* * *
Under such circumstances, we discern no clear and indisputable constitutional infirmity. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The petition is denied.