This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case, a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, a nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, and a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case. The Federal Circuit also issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

ABS Global, Inc. v. Cytonome/ST, LLC (Precedential)

ABS Global, Inc. appeals the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision in an inter partes review sustaining the patentability of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,529,161, which is assigned to Cytonome/ST, LLC. Because ABS’s appeal is moot, we dismiss the appeal.

Prost, Chief Judge, dissenting in part.

Time and again the Supreme Court has explained that vacatur is in order when the prevailing party below unilaterally moots an appeal. The Majority today departs from that established practice, concluding that dismissal is the proper course here. It is not. I respectfully dissent from Part III of the Majority’s opinion.

Horizon Pharma, Inc. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. (Nonprecedential)

Appellants Horizon Medicines LLC and Nuvo Pharmaceutical (Ireland) Designated Activity Company appeal the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey’s grant of summary judgment that the claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,220,698 and 9,393,208 are invalid for indefiniteness. The parties’ primary dispute on appeal is the district court’s construction of the claim term “target.” Because we agree with the district court’s construction of the term “target” to mean “set as a goal,” we affirm.

Newman v. Department of the Air Force (Nonprecedential)

Corey Z. Newman appealed his removal from employment to the Merit Systems Protection Board. Because the Board correctly determined that Mr. Newman’s removal complied with the Master Labor Agreement governing his employment and did not violate Mr. Newman’s due process rights, we affirm.

Vargas v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)

Peter Vargas, a veteran, filed a motion with a regional office of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) seeking to set aside, based on clear and unmistakable error, certain earlier adverse VA decisions on his claims for disability benefits relating to lower-back problems and asthma. The regional office and then the Board of Veterans’ Appeals found no clear and unmistakable error calling for revision of the VA decisions, and the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) affirmed. Vargas v. Wilkie, No. 19-5091, 2020 WL 2754902 (Vet. App. May 28, 2020). Mr. Vargas appeals. Because we lack jurisdiction to decide the issues that Mr. Vargas raises, we must dismiss his appeal.

Rule 36 Judgments