This morning the Federal Circuit issued four nonprecedential opinions in patent cases and two nonprecedential opinions in cases reviewing decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court also issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.
Agarwal v. TopGold International, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Amit Agarwal (“Agarwal”) appeals from a Final Written Decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) holding that U.S. Patent No. 5,370,389 (“the ’389 patent”) is unpatentable as obvious. See TopGolf Int’l, Inc. v. Agarwal, No. IPR2017-00928 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 13, 2018). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
Searcy v. Department of Agriculture (Nonprecedential)
Andrew Searcy, Jr. appeals from a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Searcy v. Dep’t of Agric., No. AT-4324-17-0226-I-1, 2017 MSPB LEXIS 1239 (M.S.P.B. Mar. 16, 2017) (“Decision on Appeal”). For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.
Michelson v. Department of the Army (Nonprecedential)
Lilibeth Michelson (“Michelson”), a former Supply Technician at the Reserve Officer Training Corps in Daytona Beach, Florida, appeals from the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”), stemming from the Initial Decision of the Administrative Judge (“AJ”), affirming her removal from Federal Service based on three charges: (1) absent without leave (“AWOL”) from January 9, 2018 through January 19, 2018; (2) failure to follow directions on January 29, 2018; and (3) creating a disturbance on January 29, 2018. Michelson v. Dep’t of the Army, No. AT-0752-18-0424-I-1 (Dec. 21, 2018) (“Initial Decision”). Because the AJ’s Initial Decision was in accordance with law and supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.
General Access Solutions, Ltd. v. Sprint Spectrum L.P. (Nonprecedential)
General Access Solutions (GAS) appeals from the final written decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) in the above-captioned inter partes review (IPR) proceedings holding claims 1–16 of U.S. Patent No. 7,173,916 and claims 1–14 of U.S. Patent No. 6,891,810 as obvious over prior art cited by petitioner Sprint. We affirm.
Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. v. Iancu (Nonprecedential)
Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. appeals the district court’s summary judgment upholding the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s patent term adjustment (PTA) determination for U.S. Patent No. 8,518,912. Specifically, Idorsia challenges the PTO’s calculation of “A Delay,” whereby a patent’s term is adjusted when the PTO fails to respond to certain events or filings by statutorily enumerated examination deadlines. Because the district court correctly concluded that the PTO examiner’s first of three restriction requirements satisfied the notice requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 132, and thus ended the accumulation of A Delay for the ’912 patent, we affirm.
In re Chapman (Nonprecedential)
Karen Chapman appeals from the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) affirming the examiner’s rejection of all pending claims of U.S. Patent Application 14/675,320 (“the ’320 application”). Ex parte Chapman¸ No. 2018-007101 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2019) (“Decision”). For the reasons stated below, we affirm.