This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions and an erratum. In the first opinion, the court dismissed an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In the second, the court affirmed a judgment of the Patent and Trial Appeal Board. In the third, the court reversed a judgment of no invalidity in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Texas. In the fourth, the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment in a pro se case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the erratum.
Dolbin v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
Timothy Dolbin appeals from a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) denying his petition for writ of mandamus and dismissing his motion for class certification as moot. Because Mr. Dolbin has received a Board decision, we dismiss Mr. Dolbin’s appeal as moot.
DivX, LLC v. Netflix, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Patent Owner DivX, LLC (DivX) appeals a decision by the Patent and Trial Appeal Board (Board) determining that claims 1–6, 9, 10, and 13–19 of U.S. Patent No. 7,295,673 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over a combination of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,574,785 (Ueno); 7,151,832 (Fetkovich); and 6,957,350 (Demos). DivX timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). Because we adopt the Board’s constructions of “frame decryption stream” and “frame [encryption/decryption] function” and determine that substantial evidence supports the Board’s factual findings, we affirm.
Cioffi v. Google LLC (Nonprecedential)
The plaintiffs-appellees (collectively, “Cioffi”) brought this patent infringement action against defendant-appellant Google LLC, alleging infringement of a total of four claims across three patents. Following a trial, the jury found the asserted claims to be infringed and not invalid. The district court then addressed the question whether the asserted claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 251 and held that they were not. We reverse the district court’s determination that the claims were not invalid.
Pohl v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Pro se Appellant Michael G. Pohl is a retired United States Air Force Reserve flight engineer. In 1999, the Air Force informed Mr. Pohl that he would be discharged for physical disqualification based on his back problems. He applied for transfer to the Retired Reserve in lieu of the discharge and was placed on the “Retired Reserve List.” In 2018, Mr. Pohl, in an effort to obtain disability retirement pay, petitioned the Air Force Board for the Correction of Military Records (“Record Corrections Board”) to change his records to reflect that he had been discharged for medical disqualification for a back disability stemming from an alleged 1991 Air Force training accident. On July 5, 2020, the Record Corrections Board denied the petition.
Mr. Pohl sued the government in 2021 in the United States Court of Federal Claims claiming he was entitled to military disability retirement pay under 10 U.S.C. § 1204. The government moved to dismiss on grounds that Mr. Pohl’s claim was barred by the applicable six-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2501. According to the government, Mr. Pohl’s claim accrued when he was discharged in 1999. Mr. Pohl argued that his claim accrued on July 5, 2020—the date the Record Corrections Board denied his request to correct his records. The Court of Federal Claims agreed with the government and dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Mr. Pohl appeals. We affirm.