In re Niznick — Fed. Cir. (argued July 10, 2026)
The Federal Circuit hears Gerald Niznick's appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board over a patent application involving dental-implant components. The case asks whether the Board's decision should stand. Four days later, the court affirmed without a written opinion under Rule 36.
In re Niznick (No. 25-1718) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued July 10, 2026.
Sources
Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105):https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1718_07102026.mp3
Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit:https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/
Rule 36 judgment — In re Niznick:https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/25-1718.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.7-14-2026_2722395.pdf
Case docket — In re Niznick:https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1718
Patent description — Paragon Implant Company:https://paragon-implant.com/patents/
Attorney record — Patrick F. Bright, State Bar of California:https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/68709
Rule 36 explanation — Federal Circuit judgments guide:https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/case-information/case-filings/judgments/
Decision report — Federal Circuit Blog:https://fedcircuitblog.com/2026/07/14/opinions-orders-july-14-2026/
- 0:00Introduction
- 0:49Advocate — Patrick F. Bright
- 6:22Advocate — Arthur J. Argall III