This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential order in a patent case denying a request to award attorneys fees after the appellant moved to voluntarily dismiss the appeal, two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases, and three nonprecedential opinions in veterans cases. Here are the introductions to the order and the opinions.
Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Almirall LLC (Precedential Order)
Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC and Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC (collectively, “Amneal”) move to voluntarily dismiss this appeal from a final decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review (“IPR”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). Almirall, LLC agrees that the appeal should be dismissed, but asks that the court award its reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 and Rules 39 and 42. Specifically, Almirall is seeking attorney fees that were incurred for work on the IPR and in preparing its opposition to the present motion. For the following reasons, we deny that request.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. v. Iancu (Nonprecedential)
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. owns U.S. Patent No. 8,483,166, which describes and claims methods and apparatuses by which a mobile communication device can gain access to a 2G/3G network using a temporary identifier it already has from a 4G network. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., which is no longer a party to this case, successfully sought from the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) an inter partes review of claims 1–5 and 12–16 of the ’166 patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board ultimately determined that claims 1–5 are unpatentable for obviousness and that claims 12–16 are not unpatentable. Samsung Electronics Co. v. Huawei Technologies Co., No. IPR2017-01483, 2018 WL 6380662 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 4, 2018). On Huawei’s appeal, we affirm.
In re Rosenberg (Nonprecedential)
Michael Rosenberg seeks review of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) decision affirming an examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3–9, 12–19, 21–27, and 30–36 of U.S. Patent Application No. 12/102,992 (the ’992 Application) under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We affirm.
Williams v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)
Michael Williams appeals from the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) denying him entitlement to a compensable rating for service-connected pulmonary tuberculosis (“PTB”). See Williams v. Wilkie, No. 18-2876, 2019 WL 3366777 (Vet. App. July 26, 2019) (“Decision”). Because we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal.
Lawrence v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)
Appellant Dave W. Lawrence (“Lawrence”) appeals a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”), affirming a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”), which denied his claim for entitlement to a total disability rating due to individual unemployability (“TDIU”). Lawrence v. Wilkie, No. 17- 2271, 2019 WL 272402 (Vet. App. Jan. 22, 2019). We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Young v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)
In 2012, Mr. Young applied to the VA for a resumption of disability benefits. Although the VA granted the claim, it informed Mr. Young that he would not receive any benefits until the yet-unrecouped part of the 1989 severance payment had been recouped. Mr. Young appealed the decision to resume the recoupment to the VA’s Board of Veterans’ Appeals, arguing that the termination of benefits two decades earlier was unlawful and, had that error not occurred, the recoupment would already have been completed. The Board rejected the argument. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) affirmed. Young v. Wilkie, 2019 WL 4742990 (Vet. App. Sept. 30, 2019).
Mr. Young appeals. Because he has identified no legal error committed by the Veterans Court in rejecting his challenge, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.