Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

US v. Geddes, No. 25-2044 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 26, 2025)

Dismissed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 25-2044
Decided
September 26, 2025
Judge
Per curiam
Document
Order on Motion
Length
3 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

UNITED STATES,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DERALD W. GEDDES,

Defendant-Appellant

BLACK ROCK VENTURES, NATIONWIDE BANK,

WEBER COUNTY, UTAH,

Defendants

2025-2044

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Utah in No. 1:17-cv-00167-RJS, Judge Robert J. Shelby.

ON MOTION

Before LOURIE, PROST, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

O R D E R

2The United States moves to dismiss Derald W. Geddes’s appeal. Mr. Geddes has not responded.

After the United States District Court for the District of Utah entered judgment against Mr. Geddes on federal tax-related claims, Mr. Geddes filed a notice of appeal directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, docketed there as No. 25-4108 and still pending, and another notice directed to this court.1 The United States moves to dismiss the appeal docketed here, arguing that the Tenth Circuit is the proper venue.

This court generally only has jurisdiction to review district court cases arising under the patent laws, see 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1); civil actions on review to the district court from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, see id. § 1295(a)(4)(C); and cases involving certain damages claims against the United States “not exceeding $10,000 in amount,” id. § 1346(a)(2), see id. § 1295(a)(2). The United States is correct that his case does not fall within that limited jurisdiction. We also agree that transfer to the Tenth Circuit is unnecessary because an appeal from the same judgment already is pending there.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion to dismiss is granted.

3(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT

Figure on page 3 of the opinion

September 26, 2025

Date

Footnotes

  1. 1 The notice transmitted here is directed to this court, ECF No. 1-2 at 3, but in other places states that Mr. Geddes seeks to appeal to the United States Court of Federal Claims, ECF No. 1-2 at 1.

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

US v. Geddes, No. 25-2044 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 26, 2025).

Record ID
CAFC-25-2044-20250926
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-25-2044-20250926

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.