This morning, the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential opinions. Three opinions address appeals from patent cases—two from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and one from the District of Delaware. The additional two opinions address decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Philip Morris Products, S.A. v. RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. (Nonprecedential)

Philip Morris Products, S.A. (Philip Morris) appeals an inter partes review (IPR) final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board determining Philip Morris did not meet its burden of proving certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,901,123 (’123 patent) unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See Philip Morris Prods., S.A. v. RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc., No. IPR2020-01602, 2022 WL 1022576 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2022) (Board Decision). Contrary to Philip Morris’s arguments, the Board’s decision in this case did not contradict its findings in a prior Board decision, nor did the Board legally err in its motivation to combine analysis. Because substantial evidence otherwise supports the Board’s findings, we affirm.

In re Salwan (Nonprecedential)

Angadbir Singh Salwan appeals from a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) affirming the examiner’s rejection of all pending claims of U.S. Patent Application No. 16/206,728 (“the ’728 application”) as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter and as obvious. In re Salwan, No. 2022-003728, 2022 WL 8058103 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 11, 2022) (“Board Decision”). For the following reasons, we affirm.

Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Alkem Laboratories Ltd. (Nonprecedential)

Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Azurity”) appeals a decision of the United States district court for the District of Delaware determining that claims 16, 18, 22, 23, and 28 of U.S. Patent No. 10,786,482 and claims 4, 7, 17, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,918,621 were invalid. We affirm.

Menoken v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)

Cassandra M. Menoken appeals from a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board that denied her petition for review of its initial decision that had dismissed her appeal for lack of jurisdiction. For the following reasons, we affirm.

Watkins v. Office of Personnel Management (Nonprecedential)

Ronald Keith Watkins petitions for review of a Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) decision affirming a final decision of the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) finding that Mr. Watkins was ineligible for an immediate retirement annuity under the Civil Service Retirement System. Watkins v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., No. DC-0831- 16-0353-I-1, 2016 WL 3988775 (M.S.P.B. July 20, 2016) (“Decision”) (App. 1–13). We affirm.