This morning, the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases, one nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, one nonprecedential opinion in a Tucker Act case, and two nonprecedential Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the judgments.
J.S.T. Corp. v. International Trade Commission (Nonprecedential)
J.S.T Corporation (“JST”) appeals a determination by the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) finding no violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1337. Specifically, JST argues that the Commission erred in finding claims 2, 4, and 9–10 of U.S. Patent No. 7,004,766 to be not infringed and invalid.
* * *
Because it is undisputed that the accused products do not infringe under this construction, we affirm the Commission’s finding of noninfringement.
Toyota Motor Corp. v. Reactive Surfaces Ltd. (Nonprecedential)
Toyota Motor Corporation appeals from a Final Written Decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding that claims 1–11 of U.S. Patent No. 8,394,618 are unpatentable as obvious. Reactive Surfaces Ltd., LLP v. Toyota Motor Corp., No. IPR2016-01914, 2018 WL 1146318 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2018) (Board Decision). Because substantial evidence supports the Board’s obviousness determination, we affirm.
Berry v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)
Lamar Berry appeals a United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) decision dismissing his clear and unmistakable error (CUE) claims for lack of jurisdiction, and affirming the Board of Veterans Appeals’ refusal to reopen his claims for service connection. Berry v. Wilkie, No. 18-5579, 2019 WL 4892225 (Vet. App. Octo- ber 4, 2019). Because we conclude that the Veterans Court properly dismissed the CUE claims, and because we lack jurisdiction to review the Veterans Court’s decision regarding reopening the service connection claims, we affirm in part and dismiss in part.
Goforth v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Virginia Arlene Goforth appeals from the decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing her action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Goforth v. United States, No. 1:18-cv-00507-NBF, 2019 WL 994574 (Mar. 1, 2019) (“Decision”). We affirm.