This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The second comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The third comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Nevada. The Federal Circuit also released two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Evans v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)

Appellant Carole Evans, substituting for her deceased spouse James E. Evans, appeals the decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) affirming a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) granting Mr. Evans an effective date of December 28, 20101 for service-connected coronary artery disease (CAD). The Veterans Court held that the Board did not clearly err in finding that the earliest CAD diagnosis occurred on the awarded effective date. The Veterans Court also found that the Board did not err in concluding that a 1969 submission of Department of Defense Form 664 did not constitute an application for benefits. On appeal, Mrs. Evans argues that the Veterans Court erred in both determinations. Because Mrs. Evans raises only factual disputes, we dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Everstar Merchandise Co. v. Willis Electric Co. (Nonprecedential)

Appellant Everstar Merchandise Co. Ltd. appeals the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s final written decision in a post grant review concluding that Everstar did not meet its burden to show the challenged claims unpatentable as obvious. In reaching its decision, the Board found Everstar failed to establish a motivation to combine the asserted prior art. We hold that the Board abused its discretion when it refused to consider whether cost reduction would have motivated a skilled artisan to combine the asserted prior art. Thus, we vacate and remand.

Power Probe Group, Inc. v. Innova Electronics Corp. (Nonprecedential)

Power Probe Group, Inc. (“Power Probe”) appeals from a decision of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada denying a preliminary injunction against further sales of Innova Electronics Corporation’s (“Innova”) Powercheck #5420 device (the “Accused Product”). See Power Probe Grp., Inc. v. Innova Elecs. Corp., No. 21-cv332, 2021 WL 4484571 (D. Nev. Sept. 15, 2021) (“Decision”). Because the district court erred in its preliminary claim construction, we vacate its decision denying a preliminary injunction and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Rule 36 Judgments