This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case and six nonprecedential opinions in pro se cases. The court also released five nonprecedential orders: five summary affirm appeals and one grants a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

H. Hundbeck A/S v. Lupin Ltd. (Precedential)

H. Lundbeck A/S (“Lundbeck”), Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd., Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., Takeda Pharmaceuticals International AG, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. (collectively “plaintiffs”) appeal the final judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.

The district court held that defendants’ Abbreviated New Drug Applications (“ANDAs”) did not infringe two patents owned by plaintiffs, one for the use of the drug vortioxetine in patients who have previously taken certain other antidepressant medications and had to cease or reduce use due to sexually related adverse events, U.S. Patent No. 9,278,096 (“the ’096 patent”), and one for using vortioxetine to treat cognitive impairment, U.S. Patent No. 9,125,910 (“the ’910 patent”).

Defendants Lupin Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Macleods Pharma USA, Inc., Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Sandoz Inc., Sigmapharm Laboratories, LLC, Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc., Alembic Global Holding S.A., Alembic Pharmaceuticals Inc., Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Cadila Healthcare Ltd., and Lek Pharmaceuticals, d.d. (collectively “defendants”), conditionally cross appeal the district court judgment that the ’096 and ’910 patents are not invalid. Lupin also cross appeals the district court’s determination that Lupin’s ANDA will infringe plaintiffs’ U.S. Patent No. 9,101,626 (“the ’626 patent”), covering a process for making vortioxetine, and the district court’s construction of the term “reacting.” We affirm the judgment of non-infringement of the ’096 and ’910 patents and the determination that Lupin infringed claim 12 of the ’626 patent. We do not reach the question of the validity of the ’096 and ’910 patents.

Gwynn v. Department of the Treasury (Nonprecedential)

Petitioner George Gwynn seeks review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”). That decision sustained the Department of the Treasury’s (“Treasury’s”) reduction of Mr. Gwynn’s grade from Supervisory Individual Taxpayer Advisory Specialist (“ITAS”), IR-0501- 5, to Senior ITAS, GS-501-11, on the basis of sustained unacceptable performance. On review in this court, Mr. Gwynn argues primarily that the reasons and examples given in his proposed grade reduction were never substantiated. We find that the Board’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and affirm.

Johnson v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)

Marvin H. Johnson appeals the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims’ (“Veterans Court”) dismissal of his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Because the Veterans Court correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction over claims not presented to the regional office or the Board, we affirm.

Soodeen v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)

Franklyn M. Soodeen served in the United States Army from 1968 to 1970. In 2021, he applied to the Department of Veterans Affairs for disability benefits, claiming entitlement based on a back condition he said was connected to his service—specifically, to an accident he said occurred before his discharge. The relevant regional office of the Department and then the Board of Veterans’ Appeals rejected the assertion that the back condition was service-connected and therefore denied the claim for benefits. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) affirmed the Board’s decision. Soodeen v. McDonough, No. 21-7123, 2022 WL 17985187 (Vet. App. Dec. 29, 2022). Mr. Soodeen appeals.

Groves v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)

Gene S. Groves appeals a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) denying in part Mr. Groves’ application for fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). For the following reasons, we affirm.

Herrera v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)

Roberto Herrera, a veteran, appeals pro se a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Veterans Court affirmed the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ finding that Mr. Herrera was not entitled to a rating in excess of ninety percent for bilateral hearing loss or an effective date earlier than January 9, 2018 for that ninety percent rating. Because we lack jurisdiction to decide the issues that Mr. Herrera raises or they are otherwise too underdeveloped for us to review, we dismiss his appeal.

Jolley v. Department of Housing and Urban Development (Nonprecedential)

William B. Jolley applied for two positions with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)—each one to serve as a field office director—but was not selected for either position. He then sought corrective action from the Merit Systems Protection Board, asserting that HUD had violated the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 (VEOA), 5 U.S.C. § 3300a. The Board denied his request. Jolley v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, No. AT-3330-18-0138-B-1, 2022 WL 3578093 (M.S.P.B. Aug. 19, 2022); SAppx. 307–24. On Mr. Jolley’s appeal, we affirm the Board’s decision.

Summary Affirmances