This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case and three nonprecedential opinions: one in a veterans case, one in a patent case, and one in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. v. Dropbox, Inc. (Precedential)

Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. appeals the district court’s decisions that all asserted claims, drawn to technology for synchronizing data across multiple devices, are either invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 2, or not infringed. Defendant Dropbox, Inc. cross-appeals asserting that all claims at issue are patent ineligible subject matter under § 101. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the district court’s conclusions of invalidity under § 112 and non-infringement and do not reach the question of patent eligibility.

Malikulmulk v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)

Appellant Mujahid S. Malikulmulk appeals a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims dismissing an appeal of a decision by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. Because the Veterans Court properly interpreted the statutes and regulations at issue, and because we lack jurisdiction over Mr. Malikulmulk’s remaining arguments, we affirm the Veterans Court’s decision.

IRIS Corporation Berhad v. United States (Nonprecedential)

In this appeal, Appellant IRIS Corporation Berhad challenges an order of summary judgment entered against it. The United States Court of Federal Claims granted the government’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of IRIS’s patent covering a method of manufacturing electronic passports. The Court of Federal Claims construed the asserted claim to mean that certain inlays or inserts include an antenna. In its summary judgment ruling, the Court of Federal Claims concluded that IRIS did not allege that the inlays or inserts in the accused devices included an antenna. Because the Court of Federal Claims did not err in its claim construction or the grant of summary judgment, we affirm.

Brown v. Department of the Air Force (Nonprecedential)

In this appeal, Jacqueline Brown petitions for review of the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) in Jacqueline Brown v. Department of the Air Force, No. SF-1221-19-0481-W-1 (M.S.P.B. Mar. 24, 2020). Resp’t’s App. (“App.”) 1. In that decision, the Board denied Ms. Brown’s request for corrective action in her June 7, 2019 individual right of action (“IRA”) appeal. In her IRA appeal, Ms. Brown challenged the February 19, 2019 action of the Air Force removing her from her probationary position. The Board denied Ms. Brown’s request for corrective action because it concluded that she had failed to make any protected whistleblower disclosures or engage in any protected actions sufficient to establish an IRA. Id. at 23. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the Board’s decision.