This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a veterans case over a dissent by Judge O’Malley. The court also issued two nonprecedential opinions, one in an appeal from the Court of Federal Claims and the other in an appeal from a determination of the International Trade Commission in a patent dispute. Additionally, the court issued a nonprecedential order unsealing its opinion in the appeal from the International Trade Commission. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the order.
Buffington v. McDonough (Precedential)
Thomas H. Buffington appeals a final decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Buffington v. Wilkie, 31 Vet. App. 293 (2019) (Veterans Court Op.). Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.654(b)(2), the Veterans Court denied Mr. Buffington an earlier effective date for recommencement of his disability benefits after periods in which he received active service pay. Id. at 296. Mr. Buffington contends § 3.654(b)(2) conflicts with and is an unreasonable interpretation of 38 U.S.C. § 5304(c). Because we hold § 3.654(b)(2) reasonably fills a statutory gap, we affirm.
O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
It is undisputed that Thomas Buffington suffers from tinnitus, arising from his active military duty in the United States Air Force from 1992 through May 2000. Because of that disability, he was awarded disability compensation, with an effective date corresponding to the end of his active duty service. It is also undisputed that, when he was called back to active duty in July 2003—and began receiving active duty pay—his disability payments ceased. And it is undisputed that, when Mr. Buffington finished serving his country yet again in July 2005, he continued to suffer from tinnitus. Despite his continuing disability, however, his disability payments were not restored until February 1, 2008. The majority endorses the Department of Veterans Affairs’ treatment of Mr. Buffington. I do not. I, thus, respectfully dissent.
Straw v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Andrew U.D. Straw appeals from two decisions of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”). In appeal number 21-1600, he appeals from a decision of the Claims Court dismissing his alleged takings claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Straw v. United States, Dkt. No. 21, No. 20-cv-1157 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 12, 2021). In appeal number 21-1602, he appeals the Claims Court’s de- nial of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate action. See Straw v. United States, Dkt. No. 9, No. 21- cv-745 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 22, 2021). Additionally, in both of these appeals, Mr. Straw requests that this court rescind the Anti-Filing Order which the Claims Court imposed in case number 20-1157 and remove the Claims Court judge. As the issues raised in these appeals overlap, we address them in this consolidated opinion. See Straw v. United States, Dkt. No. 22, No. 20-cv-1157 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 12, 2021). We affirm as to both decisions.
Ingevity Corp. v. International Trade Commission (Nonprecedential)
Ingevity Corp. and Ingevity South Carolina, LLC (collectively, “Ingevity”) are the owners of U.S. Patent No. RE38,844 (“the ’844 patent”). On November 8, 2018, Ingevity filed a complaint before the International Trade Commission (“the Commission”) alleging a violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (“section 337”) due to the importation of products that infringed one or more claims of the ’844 patent. In an amended complaint filed on March 28, 2019, Ingevity named MAHLE Filter Systems North America, Inc., MAHLE Filter Systems Japan Corp., MAHLE Sistemas de Filtración de México S.A. de C.V., MAHLE Filter Systems Canada, ULC, Kuraray Co., Ltd., and Calgon Carbon Corporation (collectively, “Intervenors”) as Respondents.1 Thereafter, following proceedings that included an evidentiary hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”), on April 7, 2020, the Commission determined that Intervenors did not violate section 337 because the asserted claims of the ’844 patent were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g)(2) and/or 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)2 in view of a prior invention by engineers at non-party Delphi Technologies, Inc., or over the combination of that prior invention and other prior art. In the Matter of Certain Multi-Stage Fuel Vapor Canister Systems and Activated Carbon Com- ponents Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1140, 2020 WL 1700337 (U.S.I.T.C. Apr. 7, 2020) (Not. of Comm’n Determination to Review in Part, Take No Position on the Issues Under Review, and Affirm in Part) (“Commission Determination”); see also In the Matter of Certain Multi-Stage Fuel Vapor Canister Systems and Activated Carbon Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1140, 2020 WL 1026313 (U.S.I.T.C. Jan. 28, 2020) (Initial Determination) (“Initial Determination”). Ingevity now appeals the Commission’s final determination. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(6). Because we are unpersuaded by Ingevity’s arguments, we affirm.
Ingevity Corp. v. International Trade Commission (Nonprecedential Order)
Before the court is the parties’ August 4, 2021, Joint Response to the Order to Show Cause. The parties do not request that anything in the court’s opinion of July 21, 2021 remain confidential. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The opinion issued under seal on July 21, 2021 is hereby unsealed.