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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Moreno v. Nizer, No. 26-1995 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 26, 2026)

Dismissed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 26-1995
Decided
October 26, 2026
Judge
Per curiam
Document
Nonprecedential Opinion
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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

for the Federal Circuit

ROSALYN E. MORENO,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

CHRISTINE E. NIZER, SHAFIQ RAHMAN,

NATALIE E. HARRIS, KATIE O. SAVAGE,

Defendants-Appellees

2026-1995

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado in No. 1:26-cv-01799-LTB-RTG, Senior Judge Lewis T. Babcock.

Before CHEN, LINN, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.

O R D E R

The United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed Rosalyn E. Moreno’s complaint against Maryland state officials and employees, asserting state claims and violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Privacy Act, and the False Claims Act. She appealed to both this court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Following a show cause order, we dismiss.

22 MORENO v. NIZER

This court’s jurisdiction over appeals from district courts is generally limited to appeals 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. §§ 1295(a)(2), 1346(a)(2). This appeal falls outside that limited review authority. While we have authority to transfer to the court of appeals of proper jurisdiction, here the Tenth Circuit, it would not be in the interest of justice to do so here at least because her appeal to the Tenth Circuit from the same underlying case was already dismissed, Moreno v. Nizer, No. 2026-1241, ECF No. 5 (10th Cir. Sept. 3, 2026).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT

October 26, 2026 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

Moreno v. Nizer, No. 26-1995 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 26, 2026).

Record ID
CAFC-26-1995-20261026
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-26-1995-20261026

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.