This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case, four nonprecedential opinions in veterans cases, and three Rule 36 summary affirmances. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.
Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. TCL Communication Technology (Precedential)
In this appeal, the parties dispute whether the patentee was permitted to prove that the Appellants’ products infringed the claims of the asserted patent by showing that: (1) the patent claims are essential to mandatory aspects of the Long-Term Evolution (“LTE”) standard; and (2) the accused products practice that standard. Appellants assert that, if Appellee wanted to resort to that theory of infringement, it was required to ask the court to decide the question of the claims’ essentiality to the standard in the claim construction context and that the court needed to decide that question as a matter of law. Unsurprisingly, Appellee disagrees. We find no error in the submission of these questions to the jury in the context of an infringement trial.
Morris v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)
Mr. James B. Morris appeals the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) (1) affirming a Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) decision concluding that Mr. Morris’s entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (“TDIU”) benefits was properly terminated because receipt of such compensation was based on fraud; and (2) dismissing for lack of jurisdiction Mr. Morris’s separate claim asserting clear and unmistakable error (“CUE”) in a December 1986 rating decision. See Morris v. Wilkie, No. 18-4842, 2019 WL 6258853 (Vet. App. Nov. 25, 2019). For the reasons below, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Philippeaux v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)
Eddy J. Philippeaux appeals from an order of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) remanding to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) Philippeaux’s claim for entitlement to service connection for traumatic brain injury (“TBI”), or residuals thereof. Philippeaux v. Wilkie, No. 18-1961, 2019 WL 4007850 (Vet. App. Aug. 26, 2019). Because the Veterans Court’s remand order is not a final decision, we dismiss Philippeaux’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Philippeaux v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)
Eddy J. Philippeaux appeals from a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) denying his petition for a writ of mandamus. See Philippeaux v. Wilkie, No. 19-4233, 2019 WL 6331379 (Vet. App. Nov. 27, 2019). For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.
Fermin v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)
Frederick Fermin appeals a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) affirming the Board of Veterans Appeals’ finding of no CUE in its prior denial of his request for an earlier effective date. See Fermin v. Wilkie, No. 18-6419 (Vet. App. Jan. 28, 2020). Because we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss.