This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in veterans cases; one nonprecedential opinion in a government contracts case; one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case; and one nonprecedential order denying a writ of mandamus. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.
Merritt v. Wilkie (Precedential)
Douglas A. Merritt, a U.S. Navy veteran and the original claimant in this case, filed an application for service-connected benefits. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) held that Mr. Merritt had not established entitlement. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) affirmed, and Mr. Merritt appealed to this court. Mr. Merritt died while his appeal was pending. Christina Merritt filed a motion for substitution arguing that she was the surviving spouse, which we granted. We now dismiss the appeal as moot because Mrs. Merritt has not preserved her claim by filing a formal claim with the Department of Veteran Affairs (“VA”) within one year of Mr. Merritt’s death as required by the applicable statutes and regulations.
Simmons v. Wilkie (Precedential)
Richard D. Simmons 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. Simmons’s claim for compensation for a service-connected psychiatric disorder. The Veterans Court held that, even though the Board incorrectly stated that the presumptions of soundness and service connection did not apply to Mr. Simmons’s claim, that error was harmless because it did not affect the basis of the Board’s denial of the claim. On appeal, Mr. Simmons argues that a failure to apply an evidentiary presumption is per se prejudicial. Because we agree with the Veterans Court that the failure to apply the presumptions of soundness and service connection is not per se prejudicial, we affirm.
Eby v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Michelle Eby (“Eby”) appeals from an order of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) granting the United States’ (“government’s”) motion for summary judgment and denying Eby’s cross-motion for summary judgment. Eby v. United States, 142 Fed. Cl. 293 (2019). For the reasons explained below, we affirm.
Intel Corp. v. Alacritech, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Alacritech, Inc. sued Intel Corporation, Cavium, LLC and Dell, Inc. (collectively, Appellants), alleging infringement of claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,124,205. Intel filed a petition seeking inter partes review of claims 3, 9, 10, 16, 22, 24–33, 35 and 36 of the ’205 patent. The Board instituted review and subsequently joined Cavium and Dell as petitioners. The Board issued a final written decision holding that Appellants had proven claims 3, 9, 10, 16, 22, 24– 30, 35 and 36 would have been unpatentable as obvious, but had not proven the unpatentability of claims 31–33. Appellants appeal the Board’s holding with respect to claims 31–33. Alacritech cross-appeals the Board’s decision holding the remaining challenged claims unpatentable as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). Because the Board’s decision was not erroneous and substantial evidence supports its findings, we affirm.
In re Cross Engineering, LLC (Nonprecedential Order)
Cross Engineering, LLC and Wes Cross (collectively, “Cross”) petition for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Southern District of California to (1) vacate its January 17, 2020 order setting certain terms of a settlement agreement; (2) vacate its May 7, 2020 order denying reconsideration of its January 17, 2020 order; (3) issue an order requiring inclusion of a different definition of “Licensed Product” in the settlement agreement. Evolusion Concepts, Inc. (“Evolusion”) opposes the petition and moves to dismiss. Cross replies. The parties also jointly move to file a corrected non-confidential petition.
* * *
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) Cross’s petition for mandamus is denied.
(2) Evolusion’s motion to dismiss is denied as moot.
(3) The parties’ joint motion to file a corrected non-confidential mandamus petition (ECF No. 16) is granted to the extent that the corrected petition is accepted for filing and the original petition (ECF No. 2) will remain under seal.