This morning the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board; the second comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; the third comes in a trademark case appealed from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board; and the fourth comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Michigan. Late yesterday and this morning the Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order dismissing a case and three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order, and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Castillejos v. Office of Personnel Management (Nonprecedential)

Ricardo Castillejos appeals from the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”). The Board dismissed Mr. Castillejos’s appeal of an Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) final decision denying his application for a civil service annuity. We reverse and remand.

Clay v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)

Willie B. Clay appeals from the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the “Veterans Court”) affirming the decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“the Board”) denying compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for a disability resulting from a December 2006 hip surgery. See Clay v. McDonough, No. 20-3400, 2021 WL 4445383 (Vet. App. Sept. 29, 2021) (“Veterans Court Decision”). Because we lack jurisdiction over the appeal, we dismiss.

In re A. ZETA S.R.L. (Nonprecedential)

A. ZETA S.R.L. (“Zeta”) appeals the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) decision affirming the trademark examining attorney’s refusal to register the mark PARMA COFFEE because it was primarily geographically descriptive under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(2). For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the Board’s decision.

Agarwal v. Morbark, LLC (Nonprecedential)

Amit Agarwal, appearing pro se, appeals from a final judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. That judgment rested on Mr. Agarwal’s conceded inability to prove his patent-infringement claims under the district court’s construction of the term “passive sensor.” We affirm.

Nasdaq, Inc. v. Investors Exchange LLC (Nonprecedential Order)

The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that:

(1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. P. 42 (b).

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

Rule 36 Judgments