Back to Blog
CAFC-DCTJuly 8, 2026·26-1709·Appeal dismissed; mandate issued July 8, 2026.

Swift Paws, Inc. v. Zhende Tech

District Court

Holding

The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal under Rule 42(b) by agreement of the parties and ordered each side to bear its own costs. The order contains no merits ruling on any patent issue.

Why It Matters

This is a stipulated appellate dismissal with no precedential or substantive patent-law guidance.

Full Summary

Swift Paws, Inc. v. Zhende Tech The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal under Rule 42(b) by agreement of the parties and ordered each side to bear its own costs. The order contains no merits ruling on any patent issue. This is a stipulated appellate dismissal with no precedential or substantive patent-law guidance. Appeal dismissed; mandate issued July 8, 2026. The order is nonprecedential. The appeal arose from the Middle District of Florida, but the order does not identify any patent-law issue or merits ruling. The parties agreed to dismissal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). Each side bears its own costs. The Federal Circuit issued the dismissal as the mandate on the same day. non-precedential waiver / forfeiture standing / jurisdiction non-precedential waiver / forfeiture standing / jurisdiction non-precedential waiver / forfeiture standing / jurisdiction

Key Points

  • The order is nonprecedential.
  • The appeal arose from the Middle District of Florida, but the order does not identify any patent-law issue or merits ruling.
  • The parties agreed to dismissal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b).
  • Each side bears its own costs.
  • The Federal Circuit issued the dismissal as the mandate on the same day.
non-precedentialwaiver / forfeiturestanding / jurisdiction
Read Full Opinion

How this summary was made: Drafted with AI from the court's opinion or order. Read the document itself before relying on the summary. Editorial policy

More on this topic

New to District court litigation? Start with PTAB vs. District Court: Where to Challenge a Patent’s Validity