This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions and four Rule 36 summary affirmances. One of the opinions comes in a patent case addressing an appeal from eight final written decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Another of the opinions dismisses for lack of jurisdiction an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The final two opinions address appeals from the same pro se plaintiff from judgments of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances.
Masimo Corp. v. Apple Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Masimo Corp. (“Masimo”) appeals from eight final written decisions of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) holding nearly all claims of U.S. Patents 10,258,265 (“the ’265 patent”), 10,292,628 (“the ’628 patent”), 10,577,553 (“the ’553 patent”), 10,588,554 (“the ’554 patent”), and 10,631,765 (“the ’765 patent”) (collectively, “the challenged patents”) unpatentable as obvious. Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01520, 2022 WL 557896 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2022) (“’1520 Decision”), J.A. 1–106; Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IRPR2020-01521, 2022 WL 1093210 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 11, 2022) (“’1521 Decision”), J.A. 107–98; Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01536, 2022 WL 562452 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2022) (“’1536 Decision”), J.A. 199–276; Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01537, 2022 WL 557730 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2022) (“’1537 Decision”), J.A. 277–358; Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01538, 2022 WL 557732 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2022) (“’1538 Decision”), J.A. 359–428; Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IRPR2020-01539, 2022 WL 562219 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2022) (“’1539 Decision”), J.A. 429–514; Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020- 01714, 2022 WL 1094551 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 6, 2022) (“’1714 Decision”), J.A. 515–91; Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01715, 2022 WL 1093219 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 6, 2022) (“’1715 Decision”), J.A. 592–675. For the reasons articulated below, we reverse-in-part and affirm-in-part.
Kocon v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
Thomas J. Kocon appeals to this court from a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”). This court’s ability to review Veterans Court decisions is strictly limited to certain types of issues. Because Mr. Kocon’s appeal does not raise the types of issues we can review, we must dismiss his appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Trimble v. Department of Homeland Security (Nonprecedential)
Aisha Trimble appeals a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) denying her request for corrective action under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 (VEOA). For the following reasons, we affirm.
Trimble v. Department of Homeland Security (Nonprecedential)
Aisha Trimble appeals a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) denying her request for corrective action under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA). For the following reasons, we affirm.