This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions. The first and second opinions come in cases appealed from the Court of Federal Claims and involve issues related to the Vaccine Act and jurisdiction, respectively. The third opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders late yesterday and this morning. One transfers an appeal to the Northern District of Illinois, and the other dismisses an appeal. Finally, the Federal Circuit released two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order, and links to the dismissal and Rule 36 judgments.

Loyd v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Nonprecedential)

This is a case brought under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34, as amended (the Vaccine Act). Tasha Loyd filed a petition under the Act on behalf of her minor daughter C.L., alleging that the vaccinations C.L. received caused her chronic immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP). The special master found that Ms. Loyd had not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the vaccines caused C.L.’s chronic ITP, and the Court of Federal Claims affirmed. For the reasons explained below, we determine that the special master did not abuse his discretion in making that finding. We thus affirm the decision of the Court of Federal Claims.

Martin v. United States (Nonprecedential)

Rowland J. Martin, Jr. appeals from two orders of the United States Court of Federal Claims, the first dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the second denying his motions for leave to file an amended complaint and for modification of the judgment. For the below reasons, we affirm.

IdeaHub Inc. v. Unified Patents, LLC (Nonprecedential)

Unified Patents, LLC filed a petition with the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board to institute inter partes review of claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,641,849. Ideahub, Inc. appeals from the Board’s Final Written Decision determining all challenged claims are unpatentable as obvious over asserted prior art references and denying Ideahub’s motion to amend because the proposed substitute claim lacked written description support in the originally filed disclosures.

We affirm. First, the Board’s finding that Kalevo teaches determining “the intra mode for the current block . . . by using . . . mathematical expressions” is supported by substantial evidence, including the disclosure of Kalevo and expert testimony interpreting that disclosure. Thus, we affirm the Board’s conclusion that the challenged claims are unpatentable as obvious. Second, the Board’s finding that the portions of the ’849 patent specification that Ideahub identified in its motion to amend and subsequent revised motion to amend did not provide written description support for “determining an intra mode for a neighboring block of a current block” is supported by substantial evidence, including expert testimony explaining the cited portions of the ’849 specification. We therefore affirm the Board’s denial of Ideahub’s revised motion to amend as well. Although Ideahub presents new arguments on appeal purporting to show that the proposed substitute claim has written description support—arguments which may well have merit—those arguments were not made before the Board and are thus forfeited. In re Google Tech. Holdings LLC, 980 F.3d 858, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“We have regularly stated and applied the important principle that a position not presented in the tribunal under review will not be considered on appeal in the absence of exceptional circumstances.”).

For the reasons above, we affirm the Board’s Final Written Decision in its entirety.

Lilly v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential Order)

Patricia A. Lilly having not filed a revised Federal Circuit Form 10,


Pursuant to the court’s January 31, 2023, order, this case and all transmittals shall be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.


Rule 36 Judgments