Today the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, one nonprecedential opinion in a Court of Federal Claims case, two nonprecedential orders in related patent cases, and five Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.
NeuroGrafix v. Brainlab, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
U.S. Patent No. 5,560,360, which names Dr. Aaron Filler as a co-inventor, describes and claims particular methods of generating images of nerves and other bodily structures by use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology. Dr. Filler and the three appellants named in the caption (collectively, NeuroGrafix) sued the appellees named in the caption (collectively, Brainlab), asserting infringement of the ’360 patent. The case was consolidated with cases filed against other defendants and assigned for pretrial purposes to a multidistrict litigation (MDL) court. The MDL court granted summary judgment of non-infringement to Brainlab, and it denied reconsideration, as did the original district court when the case returned from the MDL court. NeuroGrafix appeals. We conclude that the grant of summary judgment was procedurally improper, and we resolve the parties’ key disputes about claim construction. We reverse and remand.
Curry v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Matthew Curry appeals from the decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims (the “Claims Court”) denying a motion for reconsideration of a judgment dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Curry v. United States, No. 1:18-cv-01363, slip op. at 4– 5 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 13, 2018) (“Decision”). Because the Claims Court did not err in its dismissal and subsequent denial of reconsideration, we affirm.
UCP International Company Ltd. v. Balsam Brands Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
Before the court is the parties’ October 3, 2019 joint re- sponse to this court’s order to show cause. The parties have
agreed that the September 19, 2019 sealed opinion may be unsealed without redactions. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The opinion issued under seal on September 19, 2019 is hereby unsealed in full.
UCP International Company Ltd. v. Balsam Brands Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
Before the court is the parties’ October 3, 2019 joint response to this court’s order to show cause. The parties have agreed that the September 19, 2019 sealed opinion may be unsealed without redactions. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The opinion issued under seal on September 19, 2019 is hereby unsealed in full.