Late yesterday the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning the court released four nonprecedential opinions, an additional nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal, and a Rule 36 summary affirmance. Of the opinions, one dismisses an appeal from the Court of Federal Claims for lack of jurisdiction, one affirms a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, one affirms a finding that a patent case appealed from a district court was an exceptional case for purposes of an award of attorney fees, and one affirms a dismissal of a case by the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmance and dismissals.
Bennett v. United States (Nonprecedential)
James Bennett appeals a decision by the Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) dismissing his Amended Complaint. After Mr. Bennett’s Amended Complaint was dismissed, he filed a motion for reconsideration. The Claims Court granted Mr. Bennett’s motion for reconsideration, struck its previous opinion dismissing the Amended Complaint, and provided leave to amend. Before the date specified for amendment expired, Mr. Bennett appealed. We conclude that Mr. Bennett did not appeal a final judgment and that we therefore lack jurisdiction, and we dismiss the appeal.
DK Crown Holdings Inc. v. AG 18, LLC (Nonprecedential)
This is an appeal of an inter partes review (IPR) final written decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board), which found that most of the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,978,205 (’205 patent)—claims 1–17 and 19–30—are unpatentable as either anticipated or rendered obvious by the asserted prior art. DraftKings Inc. v. AG 18, LLC, No. IPR2022-01446, 2024 WL 1075310, at *41 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 2024) (Decision). For challenged claim 18, however, the Board found that the IPR petitioner, DK Crown Holdings Inc., fka DraftKings, Inc. (DK), failed to prove that claim’s unpatentability and declined to consider a late-raised ground not contained in DK’s petition. DK appeals as to claim 18. For the reasons below, we affirm.
Lu v. Hyper Bicycles, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Fa-Hsing Lu appeals a decision of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts awarding Defendant Hyper Bicycles, Inc. (Hyper) attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Lu v. Hyper Bicycles, Inc., 701 F. Supp. 3d 156 (D. Mass. 2023) (Decision). In September 2020, Mr. Lu filed a patent infringement action against Hyper. Three years later, summary judgment was entered in favor of Hyper and affirmed on appeal. See Lu v. Hyper Bicycles, Inc., No. 20-11739, 2023 WL 5018024 (D. Mass. Aug. 7, 2023), aff’d, No. 24-1081, 2025 WL 440368 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2025). Hyper promptly moved for attorney fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, arguing that the case was frivolous when filed and that Mr. Lu’s litigation conduct resulted in significant and unnecessary expenses. The district court agreed, finding the case “exceptional” and awarding Hyper its attorney fees and costs incurred after January 3, 2022, the date on which the district court concluded Mr. Lu’s counsel “should have known” his client’s claims were meritless. Decision, 701 F. Supp. at 159. Mr. Lu timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
Horowitz v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Pro se appellants David Horowitz and Colleen Lasham assert that they are trustees of a foreign situs express trust (the Trust) that names Tara Lindsey Lasham as both the beneficiary and grantor. In 2024, appellants filed a complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) alleging that the United States and the State of Hawaii, also acting as trustees, breached certain fiduciary duties and failed to fulfill obligations in the administration of the Trust. See generally Horowitz v. United States, No. 24-1087C, 2024 WL 4360010 (Fed. Cl. Oct. 1, 2024) (Decision). Appellants sought declaratory relief and an order recognizing them as the Trust’s “rightful representatives.” See Decision, at *1. The Claims Court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, prompting the present appeal. Id., at *2. We affirm the Claims Court’s dismissal.