This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, two nonprecedential orders, and three Rule 36 judgments. In the precedential opinions, the court respectively affirmed a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and affirmed a judgment in a copyright case appealed from the Eastern District of Texas. Notably, Judge Newman dissented in the copyright case. In the nonprecedential opinions, the Federal Circuit respectively affirmed a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction by the Court of Federal Claims and affirmed a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In the nonprecedential orders, the Federal Circuit respectively transferred an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and dismissed an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the orders, and links to the dismissal and Rule 36 judgments.

Pickett v. McDonough (Precedential)

David L. Pickett appeals the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court), which concluded that the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) regional office (RO) complied with the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(b). As a result, Mr. Pickett’s failure to timely appeal certain RO decisions finalized a then-pending claim. The finalized claim could not thereafter provide a basis for an earlier entitlement to total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU). Because the Veterans Court correctly interpreted § 3.156(b), we affirm the Veterans Court’s decision.

SAS Institute Inc. v. World Programming Limited (Precedential)

SAS Institute, Inc. filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging, among other claims, nonliteral copyright infringement of its software by World Programming Limited. Both parties moved for summary judgment on non-infringement and copyrightability. The district court decided to hold a special hearing to assist it in deciding the scope of protection provided under copyright law to the elements asserted by SAS. It ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing on the issue. The district court then reached several determinations. The district court first concluded that SAS demonstrated that it possessed valid copyright registrations covering SAS’s asserted software. The district court then determined that World Programming provided evidence that showed the software program elements were not within the scope of protection under copyright law. Based on World Programing’s evidentiary showing, the district court required SAS to demonstrate that its asserted program elements were copyrightable. Applying the abstraction-filtration-comparison test, the district court determined that SAS failed to establish copyrightability. It rejected SAS’s expert’s report and dismissed the suit with prejudice. SAS appeals the judgment of the district court. We affirm.

NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting.

SAS Institute’s computer programs, entitled “SAS System” and “SAS Language,” are software-implemented programs for data and statistical analysis. SAS has several registered copyrights on these programs. The court today holds that these software programs are not copyrightable. This is a far-reaching change. I respectfully dissent. . . . The district court invalidated the SAS copyrights on these computer programs, and the panel majority agrees. I respectfully dissent, for this ruling contravenes the Copyright Act and departs from the long-established precedent and practice of copyrightability of computer programs.

Ogburn v. United States (Nonprecedential)

Laura Golddeen Ogburn (“Ogburn”) appeals from the final decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing her complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Ogburn v. United States, No. 21-1864C, 2022 WL 3210214 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 9, 2022); SAppx1-3.1 Because the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over Ogburn’s claims, we affirm.

Purewick Corporation v. Sage Products, LLC (Nonprecedential)

Sage Products, LLC filed a petition in the Patent and Trademark Office requesting an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 of claims 1, 3–8, and 17–19 of PureWick Corp.’s U.S Patent No. 8,287,508 on seven grounds. The Board instituted a review and ultimately determined that all challenged claims are unpatentable on two grounds: anticipation by a published patent application, Mahnensmith (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0015080); and obviousness over the Kuntz-166 patent (U.S. Patent No. 4,747,166) in view of the DesMarais patent (U.S. Patent No. 4,425,130) and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. PureWick timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) and 35 U.S.C. §§ 141(c), 319. We affirm the Board’s ruling on anticipation.

Manuel v. United States (Nonprecedential Order)

Having received no responses to the order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed or transferred for lack of jurisdiction, we conclude that transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 is appropriate under the circumstances.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The appeal and all its filings are transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.


Rule 36 Judgments