This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions, two in Merit Systems Protection Board cases, one in a patent case, and one dismissing an appeal on jurisdictional grounds. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Feliciano v. Department of Transportation (Nonprecedential)
Nick Feliciano appeals the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board denying his request for differential pay for his military service in the United States Coast Guard. We have previously held in Adams v. Department of Homeland Security, 3 F.4th 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2021) and Nordby v. Social Security Administration, No. 21-2280 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2023) that the entitlement to differential pay under 5 U.S.C. § 5538(a) and 10 U.S.C. § 101(a)(13)(B) requires the employee to serve in a contingency operation. Because those cases control the outcome here, we affirm.
Flynn v. Department of State (Nonprecedential)
Charles Flynn appeals the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board denying his request for differential pay for his military service in the Army Reserve. Because our holdings in Adams v. Department of Homeland Security, 3 F.4th 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2021) and Nordby v. Social Security Administration, No. 21-2280 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2023) dictate that the entitlement to differential pay under 5 U.S.C. § 5538(a) and 10 U.S.C. § 101(a)(13)(B) requires the employee to serve in a contingency operation, we affirm.
Laitram, LLC v. Ashworth Bros., Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Laitram, LLC appeals a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that claims 9 and 11–13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,023,388 and claims 1–4 of U.S. Patent No. 10,189,645 are unpatentable as obvious. Ashworth Bros., Inc. cross-appeals the Board’s decision that claim 10 of the ’388 patent is patentable over Roinestad and other prior art. As to the lead appeal, we affirm because the Board correctly construed the claims and because substantial evidence supports the Board’s factual findings. As to the cross-appeal, we vacate and remand for the Board to give proper weight to Ashworth’s arguments and evidence about Roinestad as a whole.
Garciamedina v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
Ernesto Garciamedina appeals an interlocutory order of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims vacating and remanding a 2019 decision by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. Because this non-final order does not fall into the limited class of orders that we will consider under Williams v. Principi, 275 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2002), we dismiss.