This morning the Federal Circuit issued five nonprecedential opinions: two in patent cases, one in a vaccine case, one in a veterans case, and one in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Additionally, the Federal Circuit issued three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

Siemens Mobility, Inc. v. Iancu (Nonprecedential)

Siemens Mobility, Inc. (“Siemens”) appeals from two final written decisions of the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (“the PTO’s”) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”), holding claims 1–9 and 11–19 of U.S. Patent 6,609,049 (“the ’049 patent”) and claims 1–9 and 11–19 of U.S. Patent 6,824,110 (“the ’110 patent”) unpatentable. Westinghouse Air Brake Techs. Corp. v. Siemens Mobility, Inc., No. IPR2017-01669 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2019) (“’110 Decision”); Westinghouse Air Brake Techs. Corp. v. Siemens Mobility, Inc., No. IPR2017-02044 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2019). Because we discern no error in the Board’s claim construction, factual findings, and evaluation of secondary considerations, we affirm.

Salwan v. Iancu (Nonprecedential)

Angadbir Singh Salwan (“Salwan”) appeals the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia’s grant of summary judgment in an action brought under 35 U.S.C. § 145. Salwan v. Iancu, No. 1:18-CV-1543, 2019 WL 4144308 (E.D. Va. Aug. 30, 2019). For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s decision.

Wyatt v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Nonprecedential)

Kathleen Wyatt (“Wyatt”) filed a claim seeking compensation for injuries allegedly compensable under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa–1 (“the Vaccine Act”). The Special Master found that Wyatt failed to demonstrate she was entitled to compensation and therefore dismissed the claim. See Wyatt v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 14-706V, 2018 WL 7017751 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 17, 2018). Wyatt filed a Motion for Review with the United States Court of Federal Claims (the “Claims Court”). The Claims Court denied Wyatt’s Motion for Review. See Wyatt v. Sec’y of Health and Hum. Servs., 144 Fed. Cl. 531 (2019). Wyatt timely appealed from the Claims Court’s denial of review. For the reasons discussed herein, we affirm.

Winters v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)

Pro se Appellant Regina Winters, widow of United States Army veteran Arthur L. Winters, appeals the January 10, 2020, decision of the United States Court of Appeals of Veterans Claims affirming a denial of Mrs. Winters’s claim that her deceased husband was entitled to an earlier effective date for his special monthly compensation award and that she was entitled to accrued benefits. We are statutorily prohibited from reviewing the Veterans Court’s factual determinations or its application of law to particular facts. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). Because Mrs. Winters’s appeal involves only the application of law to facts, we lack jurisdiction over Mrs. Winters’s case, and dismiss this appeal.

Lewis v. Department of the Treasury (Nonprecedential)

Pro se appellant Kiesha Lewis appeals from a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) denying Ms. Lewis’s request for corrective action under the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA). Because we conclude that the Board’s determinations are neither arbitrary nor capricious nor contrary to law and are supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.

Rule 36 Judgments