This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a veterans case, two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases vacating and remanding in view of Arthrex, and two nonprecedential orders in related patent cases denying petitions for writs of mandamus. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the orders.
O’Brien v. Wilkie (Precedential)
This is a veterans’ benefits case. Mr. Dennis O’Brien appeals a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims finding him ineligible to receive additional disability compensation as the legal guardian of his grandson, D.B. Because D.B. does not qualify as Mr. O’Brien’s dependent under the benefits-granting statute, we affirm.
Polaris Innovations Limited v. Kingston Technolgy Co. (Nonprecedential)
In its opening brief, Polaris Innovations Limited argues that the final written decision at issue in this appeal exceeds the scope of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s authority and violates the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. See Appellant’s Br. 53 (citing U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2). This court recently decided this issue in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Accordingly, the Board’s decision in No. IPR2017-00116 is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Board for proceedings consistent with this court’s decision in Arthrex.
Polaris Innovations Limited v. Kingston Technolgy Co. (Nonprecedential)
In its opening brief, Polaris Innovations Limited argues that the final written decision at issue in this appeal exceeds the scope of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s authority and violates the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. See Appellant’s Br. 52 (citing U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2). This court recently decided this issue in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Accordingly, the Board’s decision in No. IPR2016-01621 is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Board for proceedings consistent with this court’s decision in Arthrex.
In re Sgromo (Nonprecedential Order)
Pietro Pasquale Antonio Sgromo petitions for a writ of mandamus to compel the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to reverse its dismissal of the case and grant injunctive and other relief.
* * *
Mandamus is not available to Mr. Sgromo because he could have obtained review of the district court’s decisions through direct appeal. See In re Pollitz, 206 U.S. 323, 331 (1907) (“[M]andamus cannot . . . be used to perform the office of an appeal.”). However, we may construe a petition as a notice of appeal if filed within the filing deadline. Those are the circumstances here. We therefore construe the petition as a timely notice of appeal and direct the clerk to docket the appeal in the usual course.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition for writ of mandamus is denied because the matter is treated as a timely notice of appeal. The clerk is directed to docket the case as an appeal.
In re Sgromo (Nonprecedential Order)
Pietro Pasquale Antonio Sgromo petitions for a writ of mandamus to compel the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to reverse its dismissal of the case and grant injunctive and other relief.
* * *
Mandamus is not available to Mr. Sgromo because he could have obtained review of the district court’s decisions through direct appeal. See In re Pollitz, 206 U.S. 323, 331 (1907) (“[M]andamus cannot . . . be used to perform the office of an appeal.”). However, we may construe a petition as a notice of appeal if filed within the filing deadline. Those are the circumstances here. We therefore construe the petition as a timely notice of appeal and direct the clerk to docket the appeal in the usual course.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition for writ of mandamus is denied because the matter is treated as a timely notice of appeal. The clerk is directed to docket the case as an appeal.