This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions.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

Nagle v. United States Postal Service (Nonprecedential)

Petitioner John Joseph Nagle appeals the Merit Systems Protection Board’s affirmance of the U.S. Postal Service’s decision to remove Nagle from employment. For the following reasons, we affirm.

Davis v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)

Gilbert Davis, an Air Force veteran, appeals the Veterans Court’s denial of Davis’s petition for writ of mandamus for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to the Regional Office’s June 2018 and February 2012 rating decisions.

* * *

The Veterans Court concluded that Davis failed to provide factual support for the argument that the normal appeals process was unavailable to Davis to contest both the February 2012 and June 2018 decisions as well as the alleged lack of notice. In reaching that conclusion, the Veterans Court applied the law to the facts before it. This is not a case like Beasley v. Shinseki, where the veteran’s challenge to the adequacy of a remedy depends upon a determination “regarding the scope of the legal obligation imposed on the [Department of Veterans Affairs].” See 709 F.3d at 1157. Davis raises no challenge to the validity or interpretation of any statute or regulation, but instead contests the Veterans Court’s application of the law to the facts. Such a challenge is beyond our jurisdiction to review. For that reason, we must dismiss the appeal.

Tris Pharma, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. (Nonprecedential)

Appellant Tris Pharma, Inc. (Tris) owns U.S. Patent Nos. 8,465,765 (’765 patent), 8,563,033 (’033 patent), and 8,778,390 (’390 patent). Tris asserted claims of all three patents against Appellee Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. (Actavis) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Following a five-day bench trial, the district court held that all asserted claims would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Tris Pharma, Inc. v. Actavis Lab’ys FL, Inc., 276 F. Supp. 3d 226, 249 (D. Del. 2017). In September 2017, Tris appealed the district court’s decision to this court. We held that the district court “failed to make the necessary factual findings and provide sufficient analysis of the parties’ arguments to permit effective appellate review.” Tris Pharma, Inc. v. Actavis Lab’ys FL, Inc., 755 F. App’x 983, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Tris I). Accordingly, we vacated and remanded for further fact-finding. Id. at 993. On remand, the district court considered the trial record, post-trial record, and the parties’ post-remand briefing. Tris Pharma, Inc. v. Actavis Lab’ys FL, Inc., 503 F. Supp. 3d 183, 185 (D. Del. 2020) (Remand Decision). Based on its review, the district court concluded that Actavis failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art references with a reasonable expectation of success. Id. at 202–03. Accordingly, the district court held that Actavis failed to show that the challenged claims would have been obvious. Id. This appeal followed. Because the district court’s conclusions are not clearly erroneous, we affirm.

Rule 36 Judgments