This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case and three nonprecedential opinions in veterans cases. The court also issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.
Chevron U.S.A. Inc., v. University of Wyoming Research Corp. (Precedential)
This is an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) Decision on Motions under 37 C.F.R. § 41.125 (“Decision on Motions”) and from the Board’s Judgment under 37 C.F.R. § 41.127(a) in Interference No. 106,064. J.A. 6–41; J.A. 46–49. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) (2000) and 35 U.S.C. § 141 (2002). For the reasons stated below, we affirm.
NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting
This case concerns a patent “interference” proceeding, conducted under the now-discontinued statute whereby the patent for a commonly claimed invention is awarded to the party who was the first to invent, rather than the first to file the patent application. The interference is a trial-like administrative proceeding in which the competing inventors prove their dates of invention. Extensive precedent evolved over the decades of this often complex procedure, providing guidance for determination of the core priority issues of conception, corroboration, reduction to practice, and diligence.
* * *
As I shall discuss, the Board erred. The Wyoming specification does not describe and does not support the claims copied from Chevron. In its chain of applications Wyoming describes and claims a different method. Wyoming’s only mention of the Chevron method is in the claims that Wyoming copied from Chevron. In the absence of any description of the Chevron method, Wyoming’s applications cannot establish conception and constructive reduction to practice of the Chevron method.
No Wyoming inventor asserted conception or reduction to practice of the Chevron method, and no testimonial or documentary evidence was offered. Wyoming relies entirely on its earlier-filed specifications, which describe only the different Wyoming method. As summarized in Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc), the test is whether the priority application “convey[ed] to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Id. at 1351 (citing Ralston Purina Co. v. Far–Mar–Co, Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
The Board erred in law and fact. From the majority’s affirmance of the Board’s decision, I respectfully dissent.
Juarez v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)
Jesus S. Juarez appeals a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) affirming the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) decision that dismissed his motion for revision based on clear and unmistakable error (CUE) as insufficiently pled. Because we lack jurisdiction to review the Veterans Court’s decision, we dismiss this appeal.
Jemmott v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)
Ishmeal W. Jemmott, Jr., appeals an order of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) denying his petition for a writ of mandamus. See Jemmott v. Wilkie, No. 20-1255, 2020 WL 1894644 (Vet. App. Apr. 17, 2020). Because we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss.
Byers v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)
Frances A. Byers appeals from the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“the Veterans Court”) dismissing, on the ground of res judicata, her appeal from the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ (“the Board”) decision denying her request for enhanced dependency and indemnity compensation (“DIC”). Byers v. Wilkie, No. 18-5089, 2019 U.S. App. Vet. Claims LEXIS 1925 (Vet. App. Oct. 31, 2019). Because Byers challenges the Veterans Court’s factual determinations, or application of law to fact, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.