This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a Merit Systems Protection Board case; one precedential opinion in a veterans case; two nonprecedential opinions in veterans cases; and one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Young v. MSPB (Precedential)
Teresa M. Young, a former Internal Revenue Service employee, asserts that she was removed from her position with the agency for engaging in protected whistleblowing activity. She filed a complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel and subsequently filed an Individual Right of Action (“IRA”) appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (“the Board”). A Board administrative judge ruled that Ms. Young had not made a non-frivolous allegation that her disclosures were protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 101-12, 103 Stat. 16 (1989), and therefore dismissed her appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.
Carr v. Wilkie (Precedential)
This case is about veterans’ educational assistance benefits. Father-daughter appellants Robert and Samantha Carr appeal a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims upholding a mid-semester termination of education benefits Ms. Carr received from her father. Based on a regulation specific to dependents’ use of transferred benefits, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals had denied Ms. Carr’s request to extend her benefits until the end of her school semester. The Veterans Court, however, resolved the appeal purely through statutory interpretation and did not address the transferred benefits regulation. Because we disagree with the Veterans Court’s interpretation of the statutes in question, we reverse and remand for consideration of the unaddressed regulatory challenge.
Robles v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)
Gabriel M. Robles appeals from the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) denying his petition for extraordinary relief. Robles v. Wilkie, No. 19-4805, 2019 WL 3806385 (Vet. App. Aug. 14, 2019) (“Decision”). For the reasons below, we dismiss the appeal.
Thomas v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)
Derrel L. Thomas appeals from the panel decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) adopting the single-judge order denying his petition for a writ of mandamus. See Thomas v. Wilkie, No. 19-2749, 2019 WL 3210103 (Vet. App. July 17, 2019) (“Decision”). Because we cannot review the issues raised in this appeal or grant the relief sought in Thomas’s petition, we dismiss the appeal.
Ubisoft Entertainment, S.A. v. Yousician Oy (Nonprecedential)
This appeal arises from a decision of the District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina that U.S. Patent No. 9,839,852, titled “Interactive Guitar Game,” claims patent-ineligible subject matter. Ubisoft contends that the district court “overgeneralized” the asserted claims and that the claims recite specific improvements in computer capabilities. Because the district court’s decision is in tune with our Section 101 jurisprudence, we affirm.