This morning, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in patent cases. The court also issued three nonprecedential opinions: one in a case involving an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board, one in a trade case, and one in a veterans case. Finally, the court issued four Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

Ferring B.V. v. Allergan, Inc. (Precedential)

When a district court enters judgment at the summary judgment stage, it is at times difficult to discern on appeal whether the nonmovant failed to raise sufficient factual disputes to prevent judgment or the court acted despite such disputes. Where the matter adjudged is a quintessentially fact-laden one, such as the equitable matter at issue here, it is especially important that we guard against a rush to judgment. We conclude that such a rush to judgment happened here. Accordingly, we vacate and remand for further development of the record and a later-stage resolution of whether Appellants are equitably estopped from seeking to correct inventorship of the patents at issue in these proceedings.

C. R. Bard Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc. (Precedential)

The appellants, manufacturers of implantable medical devices for intravascular injections, sued their competitor for patent infringement. Partway through the jury trial, the district court granted judgment that the asserted claims were not infringed, were not willfully infringed, and were invalid as directed to printed matter. We hold that there was substantial evidence in the record to support a jury finding of infringement and willfulness. We also hold that the asserted claims are not directed solely to printed matter, and thus are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and that a genuine dispute of material fact precludes summary judgment as to anticipation. Thus, we reverse-inpart and vacate-in-part the district court’s judgments and remand for further proceedings.

Hairston v. Department of Defense (Nonprecedential)

Donald Francis Hairston appeals from a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“the Board”) affirming a removal decision by the Department of Defense (“the agency”). Hairston v. Dep’t of Def., No. DC-0752-20-0126-I-1, 2020 MSPB LEXIS 456 (Feb. 6, 2020) (“Final Decision”). Because we find no violation of Hairston’s due process rights and no harmful procedural error, we affirm.

DAK Americas LLC v. United States (Nonprecedential)

Without reaching the question whether the demand letters at issue here constitute final agency action, the Court finds that appellants have failed to show that, on the merits, the decision by the Court of International Trade was erroneous.

Elliott v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)

Earnest Elliott, Jr. appeals from the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the “Veterans Court”) affirming the decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the “Board”) denying Elliott’s claim of clear and unmistakable error in a 1999 Department of Veterans Affairs regional office (“RO”) claim decision. See Elliott v. Wilkie, No. 17-3676, 2019 WL 3403587 (Vet. App. July 29, 2019). Because Elliott only challenges the Veterans Court’s factual determinations and application of law to the facts, this appeal falls outside our jurisdiction. We therefore dismiss Elliott’s appeal.

Rule 36 Judgments