This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Federal Circuit also issued three nonprecedential opinions. Two of the opinions came in veterans cases appealed from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The third opinion came in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Finally, the court issued three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Kannuu Ltd. V. Samsung Electronics Co. (Precedential)

Kannuu Pty Ltd. (Kannuu) appeals from the district court’s denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction compelling Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, Samsung) to seek dismissal of Samsung’s petitions for inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. Accordingly, we affirm.

Brown v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)

Anita Brown appeals a United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims decision dismissing her appeal from the Board of Veterans Appeals for lack of jurisdiction. Brown v. Wilkie, No. 19-7601, 2020 WL 7060025 (Vet. App. Dec. 3, 2020). Because the Veterans Court correctly dismissed Ms. Brown’s appeal, we affirm.

Vaca v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)

Christopher Vaca, a United States Army veteran, appeals the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in Vaca v. Tran, No. 19-8745, 2021 WL 422506 (Vet. App. Feb. 8, 2021). Mr. Vaca raises a number of arguments asserting that his disability ratings decisions should be corrected because they contain clear and unmistakable error (CUE). Because Mr. Vaca’s challenges on appeal involve the application of law to fact, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Baker v. Navy (Nonprecedential)

Timothy E. Baker appeals the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) affirming the decision of the Department of the Navy (Navy) to remove Mr. Baker from the position of Machinist, WG-3414. See Baker v. Dep’t. of the Navy, No. SF-0752-21-0024-I-1, 2021 WL 533572 (M.S.P.B. Feb. 10, 2021) (Board Decision). Because the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.

Rule 36 Judgments