This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case addressing obviousness. The court also released three nonprecedential opinions, one in a patent case and two in pro se veterans cases. Additionally, the court released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.
Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Google LLC (Precedential)
Parus Holdings, Inc. (“Parus”) appeals from two final written decisions of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) holding claims 1, 2, 4–7, 10, 13, and 14 of U.S. Patent 7,076,431 (“the ’431 patent”) and claims 1, 2, 4–7, 10, and 14 of U.S. Patent 9,451,084 (“the ’084 patent”) unpatentable as obvious. Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Google LLC, IPR2020-00846, Paper 31 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 2021) (“Decision”), J.A. 1–67; Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Google LLC, IPR2020-00847, Paper 31 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 2021), J.A. 68–95.1 For the reasons provided below, we affirm.
Optolum, Inc. v. Cree, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
OptoLum, Inc. (“OptoLum”) asks us to reverse a district court decision finding prosecution history disclaimer and estoppel, in addition to excluding certain expert testimony. Although there is room for debate regarding the statements made during prosecution that sit at the core of this case, prosecution history disclaimer and estoppel are legal questions on which we agree with the district court. We have considered OptoLum’s remaining arguments but find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the district court is affirmed.
Casaletto v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
On January 6, 2022, veteran Kyle Casaletto filed a petition for mandamus in the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”). According to the Veteran’s Court, “Mr. Casaletto’s petition include[d] eight discernable requests for relief or intervention by [the Veteran’s] Court,” and one “general disagreement.” Casaletto v. McDonough, No. 22-0254, 2022 WL 884222, at *1, 3 (Vet. App. Mar. 25, 2022) (“Order”).
* * *
This court only has jurisdiction to review the Veterans Court’s decision whether to deny a mandamus petition when that petition raises non-frivolous legal questions otherwise within our jurisdiction. See Beasley v. Shinseki, 709 F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2013); 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d). Mr. Casaletto’s petition has not raised any such questions. As such, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Ovalle v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
Azucena P. Ovalle appeals a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”). The Veterans Court affirmed a Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) decision denying service connection for the cause of death of veteran, Jose P. Ovalle. Ovalle v. Tran, No. 19-2989 (Vet. App. Jan. 25, 2021). Because Ms. Ovalle does not raise a colorable legal challenge to the Veterans Court decision, we dismiss.