This morning the Federal Circuit issued four nonprecedential opinions. Two come in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and involving the same parties. One comes in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. And one comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus to direct the Eastern District of Texas to stay proceedings in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order.
Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc. (Nonprecedential)
The PTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board determined that all five claims of the ’568 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C § 103 for obviousness: claims 1–4 based on Ogino alone, and claims 1–5 based on Ogino in combination with Beich. Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics Ltd., IPR2019- 00030, 2020 WL 1696140 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 6, 2020) (Board Decision). Corephotonics timely appealed that decision, properly invoking our jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
Besides raising challenges to the merits of the Board’s decision, Corephotonics presented a challenge under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, Art. II, § 2. After the Supreme Court resolved a similar constitutional challenge in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 141 S. Ct. 1970 (2021), we remanded this matter, while retaining jurisdiction, to give the Acting Director of the PTO the opportunity to consider reviewing the Board decision (an opportunity Corephotonics indicated it wanted). The Acting Director has now declined to review the Board decision, and Corephotonics has informed us that it does not challenge the Acting Director’s denial of review, but seeks only our review of the Board’s decision. We proceed to address Corephotonics’s challenges to the merits of that decision. We affirm.
Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Corephotonics, Ltd. owns U.S. Patent No. 9,402,032, which describes and claims optical lens assemblies. In May 2018, Apple Inc. successfully petitioned the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) for an inter partes review of four claims of the ’032 patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. Apple argued (1) that U.S. Patent No. 9,128,267 (Ogino) anticipated claims 1 and 13 of the ’032 patent and (2) that claims 14 and 15 of the ’032 patent would have been obvious to a relevant artisan based on a combination of Ogino and U.S. Patent No. 8,233,224 (Chen). The PTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board agreed.
* * *
Corephotonics timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4). Besides raising challenges to the merits of the Board’s decision, Corephotonics presented a challenge under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, Art. II, § 2. After the Supreme Court resolved a similar constitutional challenge in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 141 S. Ct. 1970 (2021), we remanded this matter, while retaining jurisdiction, to give the Acting Director of the PTO the opportunity to consider reviewing the Board decision (an opportunity Corephotonics indicated it wanted). The Acting Director has now declined to review the Board decision, and Corephotonics has informed us that it does not challenge the Acting Director’s denial of review, but seeks only our review of the Board’s decision. We proceed to address Corephotonics’s challenges to the merits of that decision. We affirm.
Potter v. Department of Veterans Affairs (Nonprecedential)
This case returns to us following our previous remand to the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”). See Potter v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs. (Potter I), 949 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2020). For the reasons below, we vacate the Board’s decision in part and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Gay v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
After completing two periods of service in the Navy, Alvin G. Gay sought benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for an ear condition and hearing loss. Mr. Gay pursued his claim until his death in 2011, at which point his surviving spouse, Shirley Gay, was substituted as claimant. The relevant VA regional office (RO) most recently denied the requested benefits in 2018, and the Board of Veterans’ Appeals affirmed that denial in 2019. When Mrs. Gay appealed the Board’s decision to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court), that court affirmed the Board’s denial in a single-judge disposition. Gay v. Wilkie, No. 19-2089, 2020 WL 3088864 (Vet. App. June 11, 2020). Mrs. Gay moved for reconsideration or, in the alternative, for a three-judge panel decision, contending that a recent Supreme Court decision not involving veterans benefits, Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, 140 S. Ct. 1891 (2020) (Regents), required reassessment of a legal principle applied by the Veterans Court in its single-judge disposition. The Veterans Court denied reconsideration but made the single-judge decision a three-judge panel decision of the court.
Mrs. Gay now appeals to us. Our jurisdiction is limited to the legal question presented and does not extend to any fact issue in this matter. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292. We affirm.
In re Netflix, Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
Netflix, Inc. petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to stay proceedings until 28 days after the district court decides Netflix’s motion to dismiss or transfer. CA, Inc. and Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited oppose.
* * *
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition is denied.