This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, three nonprecedential opinions in patent cases, and a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Eagle Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Slayback Pharma LLC (Precedential)

Eagle Pharmaceuticals appeals a district court judgment of non-infringement on the pleadings. Eagle sued Slayback Pharma LLC for infringing four patents covering Eagle’s brand name bendamustine pharmaceutical product. Eagle argues that the district court committed two errors when it concluded that the dedication-disclosure doctrine barred Eagle’s claim of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. First, Eagle contends that the district court erred when it concluded that the asserted patents disclose, but do not claim, ethanol—and therefore dedicated ethanol to the public. Second, Eagle contends that the district court improperly applied the dedicationdisclosure doctrine at the pleadings stage, in the presence of factual disputes and without drawing all inferences in Eagle’s favor. Because we find no error in the district court’s judgment on the pleadings, we affirm.

In re Jobin (Nonprecedential)

Bernard Jobin (“Jobin”) appeals a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) affirming the examiner’s rejection of all pending claims in U.S. Patent Application No. 12/523,427 (“’427 application”) under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Ex Parte Bernard Jobin, No. 2018-005329, 2019 WL 2318943 (P.T.A.B. May 22, 2019). As explained below, we affirm.

Silvia v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)

David A. Silvia appeals a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court), affirming the decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) denying Mr. Silvia entitlement to a total disability evaluation based on individual unemployability (TDIU) on an extraschedular basis due to loss of vision in his left eye as a result of cataract surgery. We lack jurisdiction over part of Mr. Silvia’s appeal because neither the Board nor the Veterans Court addressed the merits of Mr. Silvia’s Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VRE) claim, which remains pending before the agency of original jurisdiction. Additionally, even though Mr. Silvia could no longer work in his preferred position, we agree with the Veterans Court that, under the law, Mr. Silvia needed to prove he was unable to secure substantially gainful employment to be entitled to TDIU compensation on an extraschedular basis. Thus, we dismiss-in-part and affirm-in-part.

Essity Hygiene and Health AB v. Cascades Canada ULC (Nonprecedential)

In this consolidated appeal, Essity Hygiene and Health AB appeals two final written decisions in inter partes review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”). These proceedings challenged two related patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 8,597,761 and 9,320,372 (respectively, “the ’761 patent” and “the ’372 patent”). The Board determined that petitioners Cascades Canada ULC and Tarzana Enterprises LLC (collectively “Cascades”) met their burden of showing that all challenged claims are unpatentable as either anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by the cited prior art. We affirm.

Essity Hygiene and Health AB v. Cascades Canada ULC (Nonprecedential)

Essity Professional Hygiene North America LLC appeals a final written decision in an inter partes review from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Board held that petitioner Cascades Canada ULC had met its burden to show that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,273,443 (“the ’443 patent”) are rendered obvious by the prior art of record. On appeal, Essity argues that the Board erred in finding claims 2, 7, and 11 of the ’443 patent obvious by placing the burden on it to negate a motivation to combine and by failing to consider objective evidence of nonobviousness. For the below-described reasons, we affirm.