- Acorda Therapeutics 23-2374.pdf

• Whether an FAA petition to confirm/modify an arbitration award ‘arises under’ the patent laws for purposes of Federal Circuit appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).: When the district-court action is brought under the FAA to confirm/modify an arbitral award, it arises under the patent laws only if the petition itself necessarily raises a substantial patent-law issue under Christianson/Gunn; the underlying arbitration’s patent issues do not supply § 1295(a)(1) jurisdiction.
• Whether a patent-law issue is ‘necessarily raised’ when the petitioner pleads alternative, independent non-patent grounds for the same requested modification of an arbitral award.: A patent-law question is not necessarily raised where the petitioner’s requested relief could be granted on an alternative, non-patent legal theory pleaded in the petition; in that circumstance, the Gunn ‘necessarily raised’ element is not satisfied and Federal Circuit jurisdiction does not attach.
• Proper appellate disposition when the Federal Circuit lacks § 1295(a)(1) jurisdiction over an appeal from an FAA award-confirmation/modification judgment.: When § 1295(a)(1) is not satisfied, the Federal Circuit transfers the appeal to the appropriate regional circuit rather than deciding the merits.

- Amp Plus 23-1997.pdf

• Whether noncompliance with 37 C.F.R. § 90.2(a)(3)(ii) deprives the Federal Circuit of jurisdiction over an IPR appeal.: A PTO regulation requiring certain information in an IPR notice of appeal is not jurisdictional because it contains no clear statement tying compliance to the Federal Circuit’s adjudicatory authority; failure to comply does not strip the court of power to hear the appeal.

- Aortic Innovations 24-1145.pdf

• (no holding tagged to this category)

- Broad Institute 22-1653.pdf

• Justiciability of Broad’s conditional cross-appeal of the PTAB’s claim construction.: A cross-appeal is moot when reversal would not change the parties’ legal interests; where PTAB denials of preliminary motions rested on independent, unchallenged grounds, the Federal Circuit cannot grant effectual relief by reviewing the claim construction, so the cross-appeal must be dismissed.

- Casam 23-1769.pdf

• (no holding tagged to this category)

- Dolby 23-2110.pdf

• Whether the court reaches the merits of the PTAB’s RPI-related procedural rulings when standing is absent.: Absent Article III standing, the Federal Circuit must dismiss and cannot reach substantive challenges to the PTAB’s handling of the proceeding, including RPI-related procedural decisions.

- Ecofactor 23-1101.pdf

• Appealability of denial of summary judgment after trial and reinstatement of panel dispositions on non-damages issues.: After a full trial, a denial of summary judgment (including on §101) is not appealable, and the court reaffirmed affirmance of the denial of JMOL of noninfringement.

- IQE 24-1124.pdf [NEEDS_REVIEW]

• Whether Federal Circuit appellate jurisdiction exists to hear an interlocutory appeal from denial of a California anti-SLAPP motion to strike.: Under Federal Circuit law, the denial of a special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute satisfies the three collateral-order requirements and is immediately appealable, because it conclusively decides applicability, is separate from merits, and would be effectively unreviewable after final judgment given the statute’s protection from litigation burdens.
• Whether a transferee court must treat a sister circuit’s view of interlocutory appealability as law of the case after transfer.: Questions of the Federal Circuit’s own appellate jurisdiction (including collateral-order doctrine applicability) are governed by Federal Circuit law and are reviewed de novo, notwithstanding a regional circuit’s transfer order.

- In re Gesture 25-1075.pdf

• (no holding tagged to this category)

- Incyte Pharma 23-1300.pdf

• (no holding tagged to this category)

- Maquet Cardovascular 23-2045.pdf

• Scope of district-court judgment review where appellant did not brief part of the judgment (’238 patent): An issue within the scope of the appealed judgment but not raised in the appellant’s opening brief is waived on appeal, so the court leaves that portion of the judgment undisturbed.

- Micron Tech. 23-2007.pdf

• Whether an order denying motions to dismiss and imposing a statutory litigation bond is appealable as an injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1)/©(1).: A statutory bond requirement that operates as a procedural precondition and can be revisited in the district court does not constitute an injunction, and it also fails the Carson test absent a showing of injunction-like practical effect, serious/irreparable consequence, and unavailability of effective later review.
• Whether the statutory bond order is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine.: A bond order is not collateral where it is intertwined with the merits (e.g., turns on the same bad-faith likelihood assessment) and is not effectively unreviewable after final judgment, because repayment (including recoverable bond premiums where available) generally provides adequate postjudgment relief.
• Whether the court may exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over the denial of motions to dismiss.: Pendent appellate jurisdiction cannot be used to reach otherwise nonappealable interlocutory rulings unless there is a properly appealable interlocutory order to which they are tethered; absent such an anchor, pendent jurisdiction is not available.
• Scope of merits review when appellate jurisdiction is lacking.: When jurisdiction is absent, the court does not reach merits issues such as federal preemption or abuse of discretion in setting the bond amount.

- Odyssey Logistics 23-2077.pdf

• Relevance of agency inherent reconsideration authority and timeliness limits.: Even assuming an agency has inherent authority to reconsider final decisions, that authority is bounded by a reasonable-time requirement; extensive, unjustified delay after grounds were known supports denial of reconsideration.

- Qualcomm 23-1208.pdf

• (no holding tagged to this category)

- Realtek 23-1187.pdf

• Whether an ITC order denying sanctions is an appealable “final determination” under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(6) and 19 U.S.C. § 1337©.: A “final determination” reviewable in the Federal Circuit under § 1295(a)(6) and § 1337© is a final administrative decision on the merits that affects exclusion or non-exclusion of articles (or has the effect of conclusively denying requested exclusion), not a standalone sanctions ruling divorced from import-entry consequences.
• Scope of Federal Circuit jurisdiction over ITC-related issues beyond the merits exclusion determination.: The Federal Circuit may review matters ancillary to or affecting the validity of an appealable Section 337 final determination, but lacks jurisdiction over Commission actions that are not ancillary to any such final determination (e.g., sanctions issues when the investigation terminates without a merits exclusion/non-exclusion determination).
• Proper forum when Section 337 provides reviewability under the APA but does not specify the reviewing court for non-ancillary sanctions decisions.: Absent clear statutory authority granting Federal Circuit jurisdiction over a non-ancillary Commission sanctions decision, the default rule is that judicial review of agency action lies in district court rather than directly in a court of appeals.

- USAA 23-1639.pdf

• Appellate jurisdiction where the record was unclear as to entry of final judgments on certain counterclaims.: When finality is unclear, the Federal Circuit may remand for the limited purpose of entry of amended final judgments to secure jurisdiction and then proceed on consolidated appeals based on the existing briefing and argument.