This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, and another nonprecedential opinion affirming a decision by the United States Court of Federal Claims about subject-matter jurisdiction. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Ralph Lauren Corp. v. Hirshfeld (Nonprecedential)

Ralph Lauren appeals two inter partes review final written decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding Ralph Lauren failed to prove claims 70 and 72 of U.S. Patent No. 5,995,102 and claims 1–3, 5–7, 12–15, 28, 29, 31, 32, 38, 39, 53–56, 58–63, 73–75, and 77–80 of U.S. Patent No. 6,118,449 would have been obvious. In both decisions, the Board determined that Ralph Lauren’s petitions had not adequately identified where and how the prior art teaches certain limitations. See J.A. 24–25, 61. The Board also declined to consider arguments that Ralph Lauren made for the first time in its reply briefs. See J.A. 33, 78–79. Ralph Lauren challenges these determinations, arguing the Board misinterpreted or failed to consider portions of the petitions.

* * *

We see no error in the Board’s reasoning, nor do we conclude the Board abused its discretion. Ralph Lauren’s challenges have no merit. The Board stepped through the evidence presented in the petitions and, based on the gaps it identified in the petitions’ arguments and evidence, determined Ralph Lauren had not met its burden of demonstrating unpatentability. See J.A. 33, 78–79. The Board also did not abuse its discretion by declining to consider arguments Ralph Lauren made in its reply that it failed to make in its petitions. See J.A. 24–25, 61. Accordingly, we affirm.

Bryce v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)

Edward L. Bryce appeals a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) affirming a Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) decision denying him an earlier effective date for his total disability based on individual unemployability (“TDIU”). We affirm.

Cooper v. United States (Nonprecedential)

Garth Cooper filed a complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims seeking money damages and injunctive relief based on a lock-in letter sent from the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) to his employer that directed his employer to withhold income tax from Mr. Cooper’s wages. Mr. Cooper now appeals the decision of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Cooper v. United States, No. 19-1553T, 2020 WL 4691614 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 13, 2020). For the reasons below, we affirm.