This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, and the second comes in a veterans case appealed from the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential opinion in another veterans case and a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

Omega Patents, LLC v. Calamp Corp. (Precedential)

CalAmp Corp. (“CalAmp”) appeals from a judgment of infringement and award of damages as to U.S. Patent No. 8,032,278 (“the ’278 patent”). Omega Patents, LLC (“Omega”) cross-appeals the district court’s determination of the post-verdict royalty rate. We affirm the judgment of infringement of the asserted claims of the ’278 patent but vacate and remand for a new trial on damages. Omega’s cross-appeal is therefore moot.

The jury further found that CalAmp did not induce infringement of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,756,885 (“the ’885 patent”) and Omega does not appeal that determination. CalAmp, however, appeals the jury’s underlying finding of direct infringement of the asserted claims by CalAmp’s customers. We vacate the jury’s finding of direct infringement.

Atilano v. McDonough (Precedential)

Jesus G. Atilano appeals the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirming the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’s decision to treat Mr. Atilano’s personal absence from his hearing as a withdrawal of his hearing request. According to the Veterans Court, 38 U.S.C. § 7107 (2018) unambiguously requires that an appellant exercising the right to a Board hearing personally participate in that hearing. Because we conclude that § 7107 does not unambiguously so require, we vacate and remand for further consideration of the statute and the agency’s related regulations.

Sears v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)

William Sears, a veteran of the U.S. Army, appeals the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in Sears v. Wilkie, No. 19-5881, 2020 WL 5200446 (Vet. App. Aug. 25, 2020). Mr. Sears primarily challenges the Veterans Court’s factual determinations or applications of law to fact, issues over which we lack jurisdiction. To the extent his informal brief can be liberally construed as raising a legal argument, it lacks merit. For the reasons given below, we affirm in part and dismiss in part.

Rule 36 Judgment