This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a Vaccine Act case, one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, and one nonprecedential erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the erratum.
Dupuch-Carron v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Precedential)
Appellants Robert David Dupuch-Carron and Elizabeth Joanna Carron, husband and wife, are the legal representatives of the estate of their deceased infant son, A.R. D-C. Appellants filed an action seeking compensation for injuries allegedly compensable under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa–1 et seq. (“the Vaccine Act”). Appellants asserted standing to seek compensation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa– 11(c)(1)(B)(i)(III), which grants standing to a person who “received [a covered] vaccine outside the United States or a trust territory and the vaccine was manufactured by a vaccine manufacturer located in the United States and such person returned to the United States not later than 6 months after the date of the vaccination.” On the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, the Special Master ruled that Appellants are ineligible to seek compensation under the Vaccine Act, granted the Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services’ (the “Government” or “HHS”) motion, and dismissed the petition. See Dupuch-Carron v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1551V, 2019 WL 2263369 (Fed. Cl. Apr. 23, 2019). Appellants filed a motion for review with the United States Court of Federal Claims (“the Claims Court”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa–12(e). The Claims Court denied Appellants’ motion for review. See Dupuch-Carron v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 144 Fed. Cl. 659 (2019). For the reasons discussed herein, we affirm.
In re Kross (Nonprecedential)
Appellant Robert D. Kross (“Kross”) appeals the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board’s”) determination that claims 31–50 of Kross’s patent application, No. 13/275,400 (“the ’400 Application”), would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the reasons explained below, we affirm the Board’s decision.
Freeland v. Department of Homeland Security (Nonprecedential Erratum)
Please make the following change:
On page 11, line 31 replace “Veterans Court” to “Merit Systems Protection Board”