In re BadgeCert v. USPTO Director — Federal Circuit Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed
BadgeCert, Inc. appealed a USPTO patentability ruling to the Federal Circuit over US Application No. 16/113597, covering a method and system for issuing, managing, verifying, and displaying digital badges. The appeal was dismissed under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) by agreement of the parties after 215 days, with each side bearing its own costs.
BadgeCert's Federal Circuit Patent Appeal: A Short-Lived Challenge
BadgeCert, Inc. filed an appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 1 October 2025, challenging a USPTO patentability determination relating to US Application No. 16/113597. That application covers a method and system for issuing, managing, verifying, and displaying digital badges — a technology with broad applicability in credentialing, professional certification, and workforce platforms. The respondent is John A. Squires in his capacity as Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO.
The recorded basis of termination is Voluntary dismissal. The docket order states: 'The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that: (1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). (2) Each side shall bear their own costs.' The order reflects mutual agreement to end the appeal; whether this dismissal is with or without prejudice is not specified in the available record.
The appeal lasted only 215 days before being resolved by agreed dismissal. What prompted the parties to agree to end the proceeding at this stage — whether through a resolution with the USPTO, a strategic withdrawal, or another arrangement — is not disclosed in the available public record. The specific terms, if any, underlying the agreement are not part of the docket as recorded.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 215 days
215 days from filing to dismissal — a relatively short Federal Circuit appeal lifecycle
US App. No. 16/113597 — Digital Badge Issuance, Management & Verification
Product teams and R&D leaders building digital badge issuance, credential verification, or display systems should treat US App. No. 16/113597 as an active FTO consideration. The Federal Circuit appeal ended without a patentability ruling, meaning the application has not been definitively rejected or allowed through the courts. Any platform that issues, manages, verifies, or displays digital badges — including LMS providers, HR-tech platforms, professional certification bodies, and open badge infrastructure developers — should assess their exposure.
Official order — verbatim text
The docket order records a mutual agreement to dismiss the appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), with each party bearing its own costs. The Federal Circuit issued no ruling on the underlying patentability question. The order's language — 'the parties having so agreed' — confirms this was a consensual procedural termination rather than a decision on the merits of US Application No. 16/113597.
Voluntary dismissal: what the agreed ending means for both parties
Fed. R. App. P. 42(b): dismissal by agreement at the Federal Circuit
Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure permits an appeal to be dismissed upon the agreement of the parties. The order reflects that both BadgeCert and the USPTO Director consented to ending the proceeding. No merits ruling was issued by the Federal Circuit — the court did not decide the patentability question. Whether this dismissal is with or without prejudice is not stated in the available record.
No merits ruling issuedWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
A dismissal with prejudice would bar BadgeCert from re-filing the same patentability challenge; a dismissal without prejudice would leave that option open. The docket order does not specify which applies here. Practitioners monitoring this application should note that the distinction is material to BadgeCert's ability to continue pursuing patent protection for the digital badge technology, but cannot be determined from the available public record.
Prejudice status undisclosedBadgeCert exits without a Federal Circuit merits decision
By agreeing to dismissal, BadgeCert foregoes a Federal Circuit ruling on the patentability of its digital badge application. The underlying USPTO determination — the subject of the appeal — is not overturned. Whether BadgeCert retains any avenue to pursue patent protection for the technology through prosecution, continuation, or other proceedings is not addressed in the public record.
No appellate patentability rulingDigital badge IP landscape: no new precedent created
Because the Federal Circuit dismissed without reaching the merits, this case does not create binding precedent on the patentability of digital badge issuance and verification methods. Competitors and licensees in the credentialing and digital badge space cannot draw conclusions about claim scope or validity from this outcome. The dismissal suggests monitoring this application's prosecution status may be warranted for those with FTO concerns in this technology area.
No binding precedentFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | In re: BADGECERT, INC. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | JOHN A. SQUIRES, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office | Individual | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Aaron Ross Feigelson | Attorney | Counsel for In re: BADGECERT, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. | Law Firm | Representing In re: BADGECERT, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Fahd H. Patel | Attorney | Counsel for JOHN A. SQUIRES, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark OfficeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael Tyler | Attorney | Counsel for JOHN A. SQUIRES, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark OfficeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nicholas Theodore Matich IV | Attorney | Counsel for JOHN A. SQUIRES, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark OfficeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert J. McManus | Attorney | Counsel for JOHN A. SQUIRES, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark OfficeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the digital credentialing & badge technology space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence for the digital badge, credentialing, and verification technology sector — informed by BadgeCert's Federal Circuit appeal.
BadgeCert's IP footprint in digital badge technology
With US App. No. 16/113597 at the centre of a Federal Circuit appeal, BadgeCert's broader filing activity in digital badge issuance, management, and verification is worth mapping. Understanding whether co-pending continuations or divisional applications exist could signal where the company is seeking to anchor its IP position in the credentialing market.
Portfolio mappingFiling trends in digital badge issuance and verification systems
The digital credentialing space has seen growing patent activity from platform developers, LMS providers, and HR-tech companies. Tracking filing trends in methods for issuing, managing, and verifying portable digital badges — including blockchain-backed and standards-based approaches — can reveal where innovation investment is concentrating and where white space exists.
Filing trend analysisUSPTO Director's role: patentability standards shaping the space
As respondent, the USPTO Director's position in this appeal reflects agency application of patentability standards to digital badge and software-implemented method claims. Tracking how the USPTO is examining related applications — particularly under § 101 and § 102 — can inform prosecution strategy for applicants and FTO assessments for product teams in adjacent spaces.
Examination standardsAdjacent R&D opportunities near digital badge verification IP
The unresolved status of US App. No. 16/113597 — dismissed without a Federal Circuit merits ruling — suggests potential white space in claim territory covering digital badge display, interoperability standards, and third-party verification workflows. R&D teams exploring blockchain-backed credentials, decentralised identity, or AI-driven skill verification may find filing opportunities in adjacent, less contested areas.
White space mappingSimilar Federal Circuit patentability appeals in digital credentialing & software
Explore Federal Circuit appeals involving USPTO patentability rejections in digital credentialing, badge systems, and related software method patents.
What this case signals for digital credentialing IP strategy
A short Federal Circuit appeal ending by agreement — with no merits ruling — leaves the digital badge patent landscape unsettled.
No Federal Circuit precedent: the patentability question remains open
The agreed dismissal means the Federal Circuit never ruled on whether BadgeCert's digital badge method and system is patentable. Parties working in credentialing, badge issuance, or verification technology cannot rely on this case as authority for or against such claims. Monitoring US App. No. 16/113597 for continued prosecution activity is advisable.
Each side bearing own costs suggests a genuinely negotiated exit
Cost-sharing arrangements in agreed appellate dismissals typically suggest neither party secured a clearly dominant position. The absence of a cost award to either side is consistent with a mutual decision to end proceedings, though the underlying reason is not disclosed in the public record.
In v JOHN — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit appeal (Case No. 26-1000) was voluntarily dismissed under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) by agreement of the parties. No merits ruling on patentability was issued. Each side was ordered to bear its own costs. The recorded basis of termination is Voluntary dismissal.
The case concerns US Application No. 16/113597 (published as US20190057397A1), which covers a method and system for issuing, managing, verifying, and displaying digital badges. The application was the subject of a USPTO patentability determination that BadgeCert appealed to the Federal Circuit.
The docket order does not specify whether the Rule 42(b) dismissal is with or without prejudice. The available public record is silent on this point. The distinction is material — a with-prejudice dismissal would bar re-filing the same challenge, while a without-prejudice dismissal would not — but neither can be confirmed from the recorded order.
The appellant is BadgeCert, Inc., represented by Aaron Ross Feigelson of Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. The respondent is John A. Squires in his capacity as Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO, represented by Fahd H. Patel, Michael Tyler, Nicholas Theodore Matich IV, and Robert J. McManus.
No. Because the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), no precedential ruling on the patentability of digital badge issuance and verification methods was issued. The case does not create binding authority for or against such patent claims, leaving the legal landscape in this technology area unchanged.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.