This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and a Rule 36 judgment. In the two precedential opinions, the court affirmed a judgment appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and reversed a judgment of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. In the two nonprecedential opinions, the Federal Circuit affirmed an arbitrator’s judgment and affirmed a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and link to the Rule 36 judgment.

Roane v. McDonough (Precedential)

Ramon Roane appeals the final decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims which held that he was not entitled to a rating of total disability based on individual unemployability because his service-connected disabilities did not preclude all forms of substantially gainful employment. Because we conclude that the Veterans Court properly interpreted the benefit of the doubt rule under 38 U.S.C. § 5107 and applied the appropriate standard of review to the Board’s application of the benefit of the doubt rule under § 7261(b)(1), we affirm.

Bertini v. Apple Inc. (Precedential)

Charles Bertini appeals from a final decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dismissing his opposition to Apple Inc.’s application to register the mark APPLE MUSIC. For the following reasons, we reverse.

Mungo v. Department of the Army (Nonprecedential)

Lecola Mungo, Jr., petitions for review of an arbitrator’s decision upholding his removal from his position as a security guard. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

Webb v. Office of Personnel Management (Nonprecedential)

Kathy P. Webb was separated from federal service on August 3, 2006. On May 23, 2014, almost eight years after her separation from federal service, Ms. Webb applied for disability retirement under the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS). The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) disallowed Ms. Webb’s application because her application was not filed within the one-year statutory deadline prescribed by 5 U.S.C. § 8453. After unsuccessfully seeking reconsideration of OPM’s decision, Ms. Webb appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board. An initial Board decision affirmed OPM’s decision, and so did the final Board decision. Because Ms. Webb has not shown that her application was filed within the statutory deadline or that waiver of the one-year time limit is warranted, we affirm the Board decision.

Rule 36 Judgment