This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; a nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims; and a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The court also released a nonprecedential order dismissing a case for failure to file an appeal brief. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.
TalexMedical, LLC v. Becon Medical Ltd. (Nonprecedential)
TalexMedical, LLC appeals from two decisions of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) holding that claims 4–7 of U.S. Patent 8,167,942 (the “’942 patent”) and claim 16 of U.S. Patent 8,853,277 (the “’277 patent”) are not unpatentable as obvious. See TalexMedical, LLC v. Becon Med. Ltd., IPR2020- 00028, 2021 WL 1433251 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 2021) (“’942 Decision”) and TalexMedical, LLC v. Becon Med. Ltd., IPR2020-00030, 2021 WL 1433255 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 2021) (“’277 Decision”). Becon Medical Limited and Henry Stephenson Byrd (collectively, “Becon”) cross-appeal from the Board’s decisions holding that claims 1–3 and 9 of the ’942 patent and claims 1–2 and 9–10 of the ’277 patent would have been obvious over prior art. See id.
For the reasons provided below, we affirm the judgment of invalidity for claims 1–3 and 9 of the ’942 patent and claims 1–2 and 9–10 of the ’277 patent. We also affirm the judgment of no invalidity for claim 4 of the ’942 patent and claim 16 of the ’277 patent. We finally hold that the Board erred in its construction of the “reversibly engage” claim limitation, vacate the judgment of no invalidity for claims 5–7 of the ’942 patent, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Woods v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Byron O. Woods, Sr. appeals a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because Mr. Woods’s claims fall outside the scope of the Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction, we affirm.
Burns v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
Julia M. Burns is the surviving spouse of Willie J. Burns, a veteran. She appeals the January 22, 2021 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) in Burns v. Tran, No. 19-5946, 2021 WL 222260 (Vet. App. Jan. 22, 2021). In that decision, the Veterans Court affirmed the May 10, 2019 decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) that denied Mrs. Burns’s motion to revise on the basis of clear and unmistakable error (“CUE”) a December 2012 rating decision that granted an effective date of May 4, 2011, but no earlier, for the award of service connection for the cause of her husband’s death. J.A. 31. For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Kaetz v. United States (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:
(1) The notice of appeal be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.
(2) All pending motions are denied as moot.