This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a patent infringement complaint under the duplicative-litigation doctrine. The Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential opinions. The first and second opinions come in veterans cases appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; the third comes in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Arendi S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics Inc. (Precedential)
Arendi S.A.R.L. (“Arendi”) alleged that various LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics USA, Inc. (collectively “LG”) products infringed its U.S. Patent No. 7,917,843 (“the ’843 patent”). First Am. Compl., Arendi S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs. Inc. (“Arendi I”), No. 1:12-cv-01595 (D. Del. Oct. 3, 2013), ECF No. 34; see also J.A. 144–57 (original complaint). After the district court struck part of Arendi’s infringement expert report as beyond the scope of Arendi’s infringement contentions, Arendi filed a second patent-infringement suit against LG in the same court, again asserting the ’843 patent. Compl. for Patent Infringement, Arendi S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs. Inc. (“Arendi II”), No. 1:20-cv01483 (D. Del. Nov. 3, 2020), ECF No. 1; J.A. 1583–91. The district court granted LG’s motion to dismiss the Arendi II complaint under the duplicative-litigation doctrine, determining that in both cases the same products were accused of infringing the same patent. Arendi appeals from the dismissal. We affirm.
Hooper v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
Seth A. Hooper appeals an order of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) denying his petition for a writ of mandamus. Mr. Hooper’s mandamus petition sought to expedite matters before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”)—he requested that the Veterans Court compel the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to issue docket numbers for and advance his Board appeals. This appeal presents challenges only to the Veterans Court’s factual determinations and its application of a settled legal standard to the circumstances of Mr. Hooper’s petition. Because the appeal does not raise legal issues within our limited jurisdiction, we dismiss.
Moffett v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
Clifford Moffett appeals from a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirming the decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. For the below reasons, we affirm-in-part and dismiss-in-part.
Brandt v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
When appellant David M. Brandt applied to the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), a component of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, for a position as a nurse practitioner, VHA decided not to appoint him to the position, selecting someone else instead. After unsuccessfully complaining that VHA had denied him certain veterans-hiring rights protected by the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 (VEOA), 5 U.S.C. § 3330a, Mr. Brandt appealed his non-selection for the VHA position to the Merit Systems Protection Board, invoking the VEOA for the substance of his claim and for the Board’s jurisdiction, 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(a)(1)(A), (d)(1). The Board dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Brandt v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, No. SF-3330-22-0004-I-1, 2021 WL 5279319 (M.S.P.B. Nov. 9, 2021) (Board Op.). The Board followed this court’s decision in Scarnati v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 344 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2003), which held that VHA appointments of specified healthcare personnel made under 38 U.S.C. §§ 7401(1) and 7403(a)(1) are not subject to VEOA hiring provisions. We agree that this case comes within that holding and therefore affirm.