This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential order in a veterans case denying a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. Notably, Judge Dyk filed an opinion dissenting from the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc, and four other judges joined his opinion. The Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential opinions, the first in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims; the second in a patent case addressing patent eligibility appealed from the District of Massachusetts; and the third in another patent case involving the same patent and appealed from the Northern District of California. Finally, the Federal Circuit released two Rule 36 judgments. Here is text from the order, the introductions to the opinions, and links to the Rule 36 judgments.
Skaar v. McDonough (Precedential Order)
Victor B. Skaar filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. A response to the petition was invited by the court and filed by Denis McDonough. The petition was referred to the panel that heard the appeal, and thereafter the petition for rehearing en banc was referred to the circuit judges who are in regular active service. The court conducted a poll on request, and the poll failed.
Upon consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition for panel rehearing is denied.
The petition for rehearing en banc is denied.
The mandate of the court will issue January 24, 2023.
DYK, Circuit Judge, with whom REYNA, STOLL, CUNNINGHAM, and STARK, Circuit Judges, join, dissenting from the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc.
This case centrally concerns the availability of class actions for veterans’ benefits claims. The panel decision here effectively eliminates such class actions for veterans and in doing so contradicts established Supreme Court precedent. We respectfully dissent from the denial of en banc rehearing.
Williams v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Garland E. Williams appeals Court of Federal Claims orders denying his motion for sanctions and dismissing his complaint for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.
Riggs Technology Holdings, LLC v. Cengage Learning, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Riggs Technology Holdings, LLC (Riggs) appeals from a decision by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts holding that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,299,067 (’067 patent) are directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We affirm.
Riggs Technology Holdings, LLC v. Vagaro, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Riggs Technology Holdings, LLC appeals from a decision by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California holding that all claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,299,067 (’067 patent) are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Riggs Tech. Holdings, LLC v. Vagaro, Inc., No. 21-cv-07927-TSH, 2022 WL 74179, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2022). Our decision today in a separate case, Riggs Technology Holdings, LLC v. Cengage Learning, Inc., No. 22-1468, affirmed a decision by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts that also held that all claims of the ’067 patent are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Our decision in case No. 22-1468 has thus resolved the patent eligibility of the claims on appeal. See BTG Int’l Ltd. v. Amneal Pharms. LLC, 923 F.3d 1063, 1076–77 (Fed. Cir. 2019). We therefore dismiss this appeal as moot.