CAFC-PTOJuly 14, 2026·25-1718·Affirmed.
In re Gerald A. Niznick
Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Holding
The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB without an opinion under Federal Circuit Rule 36. The judgment provides no reasoning on the underlying patentability or procedural issues.
Why It Matters
The PTAB decision remains in place, but the Rule 36 affirmance provides no precedential guidance for future PTO appeals.
Full Summary
In re Gerald A. Niznick
The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB without an opinion under Federal Circuit Rule 36. The judgment provides no reasoning on the underlying patentability or procedural issues.
The PTAB decision remains in place, but the Rule 36 affirmance provides no precedential guidance for future PTO appeals.
Affirmed.
The appeal came from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in application No. 18/597,761.
The Federal Circuit panel affirmed per curiam under Rule 36.
Because the court issued no written opinion, the specific issues and reasoning are not available from the judgment.
The disposition is expressly nonprecedential.
Rule 36 affirmance non-precedential
Rule 36 affirmance non-precedential
Rule 36 affirmance non-precedential
Key Points
- The appeal came from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in application No. 18/597,761.
- The Federal Circuit panel affirmed per curiam under Rule 36.
- Because the court issued no written opinion, the specific issues and reasoning are not available from the judgment.
- The disposition is expressly nonprecedential.
- Fed. Cir. · Oct. 8, 2026In re Gonthier
- Fed. Cir. · Sept. 15, 2026ABC IP LLC v. PEAK TACTICAL LLC
- Fed. Cir. · Sept. 15, 2026DODOTS Licensing Solutions LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
- Fed. Cir. · Sept. 11, 2026Caddo Systems, Inc. v. JetBrains Americas, Inc.
- Fed. Cir. · Sept. 11, 2026WIPQTUS, INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.