This morning, the Federal Circuit issued five nonprecedential opinions in three veterans cases and two patent cases. The Federal Circuit also issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Wright v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)

Paul Wright, a veteran of the United States Navy, appeals the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in Wright v. Wilkie, No. 19-5244, 2019 WL 6138462 (Vet. App. Nov. 20, 2019) (Decision). Appellant’s Br. 3–5.1 The Veterans Court found that there was an available alternative means to secure Mr. Wright’s requested relief because his claims were still pending before the Department of Veterans Affairs and therefore denied his petition for a writ of mandamus. Id. Mr. Wright argues that, in denying his petition, the Board impermissibly applied the All Writs Act (AWA) and violated his constitutional right of petition under the First Amendment. Because we have jurisdiction only to review legal questions appealed from the Veterans Court and because we disagree with Mr. Wright’s legal arguments, we affirm.

Paredez v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)

This appeal involves a claim for veterans’ benefits. Appellant Mary A. Paredez appeals the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims dismissing in part and affirming in part her appeal from the Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision denying (1) entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 40 percent for fibromyalgia on a schedular or an extraschedular basis; (2) a disability rating in excess of 50 percent for dysthymic disorder with anxiety; (3) an effective date earlier than November 27, 2015, for the award of entitlement to disability compensation for fibromyalgia; and (4) a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU). Paredez v. Wilkie, No. 19-5401, 2020 WL 3163606 (Vet. App. June 15, 2020) (Memorandum Decision). For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss-in-part and affirm-in-part.

Adaptive Streaming Inc. v. Netflix, Inc. (Nonprecedential)

Adaptive Streaming, Inc., owns U.S. Patent No. 7,047,305, which claims systems that can receive a video signal in one format and broadcast it to at least one device calling for a different format. Adaptive sued Netflix, Inc., in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that Netflix infringed the ’305 patent. The district court held that the asserted claims of the ’305 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Adaptive Streaming Inc. v. Netflix, Inc., No. SA CV 19-1450-DOC (KESx), 2019 WL 7841923 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2019) (Merits Opinion). We affirm.

In re Earley (Nonprecedential)

Matthew Earley is the named inventor on U.S. Patent Application No. 12/925,235 (the ’235 application), titled “Fixed Pitch Wind (or Water) Turbine with Centrifugal Weight Control (CWC).” The examiner rejected claims 26– 29 of the ’235 application for obviousness based on one of Mr. Earley’s prior patents, i.e., U.S. Patent No. 6,949,842 (the ’842 patent), in combination with U.S. Patent No. 3,942,026 (Carter) and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0207396 (Simon). The Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the examiner’s rejections. We affirm the Board.

Jackson v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)

Mark Jackson appeals the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) that dismissed his petitions for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.

Rule 36 Judgments