This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion granting in part and dismissing in part a petition to review a final rule promulgated by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The court also released two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases appealed from the Eastern District of Virginia and the Central District of California. Finally, late yesterday the court issued two nonprecedential orders dismissing cases for failure to prosecute. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.
Veteran Warriors, Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Precedential)
Veteran Warriors, Inc., Andrew D. Sheets, and Kristie Sheets (Petitioners) petition for review of a final rule promulgated by the Department of Veterans Affairs. They claim seven parts of that rule are invalid under the two-step framework set forth in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). The government challenges Petitioners’ standing. For the following reasons, we dismiss in part, grant in part, and deny in part the petition.
Immunogen, Inc. v. Hirshfeld (Nonprecedential)
This case involves a civil action to obtain a patent under 35 U.S.C. § 145. Appellee ImmunoGen, Inc.’s (“ImmunoGen”) U.S. Application No. 14/509,809 (“the ’809 Application”) describes methods of administering the immunoconjugate mirvetuximab for the treatment of cancer. After the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) affirmed the examiner’s rejection of the pending claims for obviousness and obviousness-type double patenting, ImmunoGen filed its § 145 suit in the Eastern District of Virginia.
The district court determined on summary judgment that the claims of the ’809 Application are “fatally indefinite and fatally obvious” as a matter of law. ImmunoGen, Inc. v. Iancu, 523 F. Supp. 3d 773, 799 (E.D. Va. 2021). ImmunoGen appeals from the summary judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
In its analysis, the district court resolved numerous factual disputes against non-movant ImmunoGen, an error that is fatal to its ultimate ruling. We therefore vacate the grant of summary judgment and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
VDPP LLC v. Vizio, Inc.(Nonprecedential)
VDPP LLC appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Central District of California holding that claims 1 and 27 of U.S. Patent 9,699,444 (“the ’444 patent”); claim 2 of U.S. Patent 9,948,922 (“the ’922 patent”); and claim 6 of U.S. Patent 10,021,380 (“the ’380 patent”) are invalid as indefinite. VDPP LLC v. Vizio, Inc., No. SACV 20-00030 (JVS), 2021 WL 3621887 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2021) (“Decision”). The district court’s judgment was based on its determination that certain claim limitations are drafted in means-plus-function format under § 112(f), and they have no disclosed corresponding structures. Because we conclude that the district court erred in holding that the limitations are drafted in means-plus-function format, we reverse its judgment of invalidity and remand for further proceedings.
Davis v. McDonough (Nonprecedential Order)
The appellant having failed to file the brief required by Federal Circuit Rule 31(a) within the time permitted by the rules, it is
ORDERED that the notice of appeal be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.
Cho v. Instagram, LLC(Nonprecedential Order)
The appellant having failed to pay the docketing fee required by Federal Circuit Rule 52(a)(1) within the time permitted by the rules, it is
ORDERED that the notice of appeal be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.