This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion affirming a ruling of unpatentability as a result of the public use bar in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. The Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential opinions. The first affirms a judgment in an inter partes review proceeding appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The other two each dismiss a veterans case that was appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Finally, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. (Precedential)

Minerva Surgical, Inc. sued Hologic, Inc. and Cytyc Surgical Products, LLC in the District of Delaware for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,186,208. After discovery, the district court granted summary judgment that the asserted claims are anticipated under the public use bar of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Minerva appeals. We affirm.

KEYnetik, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. (Nonprecedential)

KEYnetik, Inc. appeals an inter partes review final written decision holding claims 4, 7, 15, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 8,370,106 would have been obvious. For the following reasons, we affirm.

Keys v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)

Harman Keys appeals from the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“the Veterans Court”) affirming a Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“the Board”) decision that denied Keys’ “motion for revision” requesting assignment of an earlier effective date based on clear and unmistakable error (“CUE”) in March 13, 1986, and June 20, 1986 rating decisions. For the reasons detailed below, we dismiss Keys’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Donaghue v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)

Bradley Donaghue appeals the final decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims denying his claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. Because Mr. Donaghue fails to raise arguments within the jurisdiction of our court, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.