This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion affirming the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in a veterans case. Notably, Judge Dyk concurred with the majority. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential opinions, both in patent cases. Finally the court released three nonprecedential orders summarily affirming judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances.

Frazier v. McDonough (Precedential)

Appellant Jeanine Frazier brought this appeal as a substituted appellant for her deceased father, Clarence Frazier, a veteran. She is seeking accrued benefits that she claims were due to Mr. Frazier. She challenges the decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“the Veterans Court”) that Mr. Frazier was not entitled to compensation for the residual effects of injuries to two of his fingers. We affirm the decision of the Veterans Court.

DYK, Circuit Judge, concurring.

I agree with the majority’s affirmance of the Veterans Court’s denial of compensation for Mr. Fraizer’s finger injuries. I do not agree with the majority’s conclusion that section 4.59, insofar as it deals with compensation for pain, is more than advisory and plays a role in other cases in interpreting diagnostic codes. See Majority Op. 11 (“[Section 4.59] has effects for disabilities within diagnostic codes that contain both compensable and non-compensable ratings.”).

Golden v. Intel Corp. (Nonprecedential)

Larry Golden appeals an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissing his patent infringement and antitrust complaint for failure to state a claim for patent infringement and for lack of standing. We affirm.

Guardant Health, Inc. v. Vidal (Nonprecedential)

Guardant Health, Inc. (Guardant) appeals a Patent Trial and Appeal Board inter partes review final written decision holding claims 1–11, 13, and 17–20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,834,822 would have been obvious. We vacate and remand.

Rule 36 Judgments