This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions: one in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and one in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Snyders Heart Valve LLC v. St. Jude Medical, LLC (Nonprecedential)
This is the second time we have considered this appeal. We previously vacated and remanded the inter partes review (“IPR”) at issue in this appeal for rehearing by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) pursuant to our opinion in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Snyders Heart Valve LLC v. St. Jude Med., LLC, 825 F. App’x 888 (Fed. Cir. 2020), cert. granted, judgment vacated sub nom. Iancu v. Fall Line Pats., No. 20-853, 2021 WL 2637823 (U.S. June 28, 2021). In that opinion, we reached only Snyders Heart Valve LLC’s (“Snyders”) arguments under the Appointments Clause. We did not address the merits of the Board’s decision. The United States of America, which intervened in the appeal, sought certiorari to challenge our remand. After its decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 141 S. Ct. 1970 (2021), the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the matter to us for reconsideration in light of its decision. Iancu, 2021 WL 2637823. On remand, Snyders waives its Appointments Clause challenge and asks that we address its appeal on the merits. We do so and reverse the Board’s determination that the challenged claims are unpatentable because that finding rests on an erroneous claim construction.
Clay v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
Willie Clay appeals from the decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“the Veterans Court”) affirming a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“the Board”) deducting previously paid, non-service connected pension benefits received by Clay from subsequently awarded, retroactive service-connected disability compensation for the same time period. See Clay v. McDonough, No. 20-1311, 2021 WL 743875 (Vet. App. Feb. 26, 2021) (“Decision”). Because Clay raises only factual issues over which we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal.