This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In it, the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of a veteran’s challenge to the reduction of his disability rating. Notably, Chief Judge Moore dissented. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. Finally, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders. The first transfers an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; the second transfers an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; and the third dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the orders, and a link to the dismissal.
Hanser v. McDonough (Precedential)
Clifford T. Hanser seeks review of the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) affirming the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ (“Board”) denial of Hanser’s challenge to the reduction of his disability rating. The Veterans Court, like the Board, determined that Hanser’s rating reduction was not subject to 38 C.F.R. § 3.344, which sets out procedural requirements that must be followed before certain longstanding disability ratings are reduced. We, too, conclude that § 3.344(c) makes the procedures of §§ 3.344(a) and (b) applicable only to disability ratings which have continued at the same level for five years or more. Because Hanser’s ratings do not satisfy this condition, we agree with the Veterans Court that § 3.344(c) does not apply to him, and, thus, we affirm.
MOORE, Chief Judge, dissenting.
The majority interprets § 3.344(c)’s parenthetical as unambiguously definitional. As the government concedes, however, that interpretation renders much of the regulation’s language superfluous. That cannot be right. Consistent with the language of the regulation and general principles of construction, “(5 years or more)” is an example, not a definition. I respectfully dissent.
Arius Two, Inc. v. Alvogen PB Research & Development LLC (Nonprecedential)
This Hatch-Waxman case involves an appeal and cross-appeal of the district court’s decision finding some asserted claims of U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,147,866 (’866 patent), 9,655,843 (’843 patent), and 9,901,539 (’539 patent) invalid for obviousness while finding the remaining asserted claims not invalid. With respect to the asserted claims found not invalid, defendants-appellants Alvogen PB Research & Development LLC, Alvogen Malta Operations Ltd., Alvogen, Inc., and Alvogen Group, Inc. (collectively, Alvogen) have not shown the district court erred in making certain evidentiary and procedural findings against Alvogen. Plaintiffs-cross-appellants Arius Two, Inc., and Biodelivery Sciences International, Inc. (collectively, BDSI) have shown that the district court applied an incorrect burden of proof when considering the long-felt need and unexpected results of the asserted claims found invalid for obviousness. We therefore affirm-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand.
United States v. Croft (Nonprecedential Order)
Bradley Lane Croft appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas denying him a new criminal trial. This is a court of limited jurisdiction, which does not include jurisdiction over criminal cases. 28 U.S.C. § 1295. Any appeal lies with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
This appeal is transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jolly v. Excelsior College (Nonprecedential Order)
Maketa S. Jolly appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania’s dismissal of her complaint against Excelsior College and nonfederal government employees or officials alleging violations of her civil and constitutional rights, the Privacy Rights Act, Public Records Act, and disclosure of personal information. Having received no responses to this court’s October 21, 2022, order to show cause and for the jurisdictional issues noted in that show cause order, we now transfer this appeal and all filings to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The appeal and all its filings are transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.