This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a vaccine case and a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Greene v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Nonprecedential)
Roy Greene sought compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Vaccine Act), 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34, based on his claim that the tetanus-diphtheria (Td) vaccine he received in July 2009 caused his brachial neuritis. The special master first concluded that Mr. Greene did not meet a precondition for invoking a presumption of causation under the relevant provision of the Vaccine Injury Table, a ruling not at issue here. The special master then considered whether, without the aid of the Table presumption, Mr. Greene had proved that the vaccine caused his condition. The special master found that Mr. Greene did not prove actual causation and so was not entitled to recover under the Vaccine Act. The United States Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) affirmed the special master’s denial of recovery. Applying the required deferential standard of review to the special master’s findings, we affirm.
O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
Because I agree with the United States Court of Federal Claims that the special master’s credibility findings were arbitrary and capricious and because multiple other findings are unsupported by the record, I would reverse the special master’s determination and remand. I, accordingly, respectfully dissent.
Fatigue Fracture Technology, LLC v. Navistar, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Fatigue Fracture Technology, LLC (FFT) owns U.S. Patent No. 7,143,915, which concerns processes for fracturing connecting rods. In March 2018, Navistar, Inc. sought an inter partes review of claims 1, 7, 9, and 10 of the ’915 patent. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted the requested review and determined that the four claims are unpatentable on four grounds, each ground applicable to all four claims: anticipation by the Brovold patent, obviousness based on the Cavallo patent combined with the Brovold patent, obviousness based on the Cavallo patent combined with the Bayliss patent, and obviousness based on the Cavallo patent combined with the Brovold and Bayliss patents. See Navistar, Inc. v. Fatigue Fracture Tech., LLC, IPR2018-00853, 2019 WL 4126205 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2019) (Final Written Decision). On appeal, we affirm the Board’s determination of unpatentability based on Cavallo and Bayliss. We do not reach (or, therefore, either question or approve) the Board’s other unpatentability determinations.