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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Kanam v. Burgum, No. 26-1010 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 10, 2025)

Dismissed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 26-1010
Decided
December 10, 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NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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

KURT KANAM,

Petitioner-Appellant

PILCHUCK NATION,

Petitioner

v.

DOUG BURGAM, Secretary of the Interior, JANEL BRODERICK, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, exercising the delegated authority of the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs,

Respondents-Appellees

2026-1010

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in No. 1:22-cv-03183-RBW, Judge Reggie B. Walton.

ON MOTION

Before PROST, CHEN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

O R D E R

2Kurt Kanam filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia seeking to compel recognition of the Pilchuck Nation. The district court dismissed the case, and the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit summarily affirmed. Thereafter, Mr. Kanam filed a motion seeking relief from the judgment, and appellees filed an opposition on August 13, 2025. Mr. Kanam then filed a “Petition for Review” to the “United States Court of Appeals for the Thirtinth [sic] Circuit,” challenging the “reply brief of August 13[,] 2025” and invoking 29 U.S.C. § 160(f), which was transmitted to this court. In response to this court’s show cause order, Mr. Kanam asserts he “is not appealing” from the district court but instead seeks review over “inaction on an administrative petition per 25 CFR 2.600.” ECF No. 8 at 1.

Our jurisdiction over appeals from district court cases is generally limited to cases involving 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. §§ 1295(a)(2), 1346(a)(2). Mr. Kanam’s case clearly does not fall into any of these categories. To the extent Mr. Kanam instead seeks relief relating to 25 C.F.R. § 2.600, which appears to address administrative appeals within the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs, he has failed to show this court has jurisdiction or that transfer to another court would be appropriate.

Accordingly,

3IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) This matter is dismissed. (2) All pending motions are denied. (3) Each party shall bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT

Figure on page 3 of the opinion

December 10, 2025 Date

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

Kanam v. Burgum, No. 26-1010 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 10, 2025).

Record ID
CAFC-26-1010-20251210
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-26-1010-20251210

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.