This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; the second comes in another patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Virginia. Finally, the Federal Circuit released two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.
University of Massachusetts v. L’Oréal S.A. (Precedential)
This appeal is from a judgment in a patent-infringement action involving U.S. Patent Nos. 6,423,327 and 6,645,513, which are related as parent and child and which are owned by University of Massachusetts and exclusively licensed to Carmel Laboratories, LLC (hereinafter referred to together as UMass).
* * *
UMass challenges both the indefiniteness and personal-jurisdiction rulings. On UMass’s first challenge, we address the claim construction on which the indefiniteness ruling depends, and we reject the district court’s construction as understood by both parties on appeal. This conclusion justifies our vacating the indefiniteness ruling and remanding for further proceedings. On UMass’s second challenge, we conclude that UMass was entitled to jurisdictional discovery, and we therefore vacate the dismissal of L’Oréal S.A.
Lopez v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
Guadalupe Lopez, Jr., a United States Marine Corps veteran, appeals the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Mr. Lopez argues that his entitlement to disability benefits for coronary artery disease should have been effective as of the date he was discharged from service. Because Mr. Lopez’s challenges on appeal involve the application of law to fact, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Baker v. Raimondo (Nonprecedential)
Donald L. Baker appeals from two judgments of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissing two complaints filed by Dr. Baker for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For the reasons below, we affirm both judgments.