This morning, the Federal Circuit issued nonprecedential opinions in two veterans cases, a trademark case appealed from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, a patent case reversing a dismissal and remanding the case to determine standing, and another a patent case affirming the denial of attorney fees. The court also issued a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

Logan v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)

Marsha Logan appeals a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court). Logan v. Wilkie, No. 19-1991, 2020 WL 1528112 (Vet. App. Mar. 31, 2020). In that decision, the Veterans Court affirmed a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals that rejected Ms. Logan’s claim to accrued benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 5121(a), a claim Ms. Logan filed after the death of her aunt, whom Ms. Logan asserted had been the surviving spouse of a veteran. Ms. Logan appeals. Because she has not made a constitutional claim and has identified no error of law committed by the Veterans Court, we must dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Smith v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)

Cary Smith appeals from the decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“the Veterans Court”) affirming the decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“the Board”) denying an effective date earlier than September 8, 2015, for right and left knee patellofemoral syndrome. See Smith v. McDonough, No. 19-4777 (Vet. App. Apr. 29, 2020) (“Decision”). Because Smith’s arguments challenge only the application of law to fact, which we lack jurisdiction to review, we dismiss the appeal.

Ghomeshi v. Strongvolt, Inc. (Nonprecedential)

Matey Michael Ghomeshi appeals from a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board) cancelling Registration No. 3,798,681 (’681 registration) for his MOBILEBLACKBOX composite mark. Because we find no error in the Board’s determination that Mr. Ghomeshi failed to show use of the mark in commerce prior to applying for registration, we affirm.

WiNet Labs LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC (Nonprecedential)

WiNet Labs LLC—a Wyoming corporation that we will call simply “WiNet”—sued Motorola Mobility LLC for infringement of WiNet’s U.S. Patent No. 7,593,374. The district court granted Motorola’s motion to dismiss the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. WiNet has appealed the dismissal. After the district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), however, Motorola, in the course of seeking an award of attorney’s fees, suggested that WiNet did not own the ’374 patent and thus lacked Article III standing to bring this action from the outset. In the submissions on the fees motion, the parties produced evidence on the issue of ownership, including two assignments, that the district court did not have a chance to address before entering the merits judgment now on appeal. Because the evidence raises a serious question about WiNet’s standing, we vacate the judgment and remand so that the district court may decide in the first instance whether WiNet had Article III standing when it filed the present action and, if so, whether it still does.

Horatio Washington Depot Technologies, LLC v. Tolmar, Inc. (Nonprecedential)

Tolmar, Inc., Tolmar Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Tolmar Therapeutics, Inc. (collectively, “Tolmar”) appeal the district court’s denial of its motion for attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Finding no error warranting correction,
we affirm.

Rule 36 Judgment