Schindler v. Squires

Schindler v. Squires The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment without opinion under Federal Circuit Rule 36. The judgment provides no merits reasoning or identified patent-law issue. Because this is a nonprecedential Rule 36 affirmance, it leaves the district court result intact but supplies no substantive guidance for future patent or PTO-related disputes. Affirmed. The appeal came from the Eastern District of Virginia in a case naming the USPTO Director as defendant-appellee. The Federal Circuit issued a per curiam Rule 36 judgment after hearing the case. The court did not state the district court’s ruling, the issues presented, or the reasoning for affirmance. No specific patent-law issue—such as § 101, claim construction, obviousness, or PTO procedure—is apparent from the extracted judgment. Rule 36 affirmance non-precedential § 101 § 103 claim construction Rule 36 affirmance non-precedential § 101 § 103 claim construction Rule 36 affirmance non-precedential