This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions and two nonprecedential orders. Two of the opinions dismiss appeals from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for lack of jurisdiction. The other two opinions address appeals from final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which found certain patent claims unpatentable. The two orders deny petitions for writs of mandamus. Here are the introductions to the opinions and selected text from the orders.
Hassan v. McDonough (Nonprecedential Opinion)
John Hassan appeals the order of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) that granted the Secretary’s motion to dismiss his appeal in Hassan v. McDonough, No. 22-4742 (Vet. App. Feb. 9, 2023), App. 1. In his appeal to the Veterans Court, Mr. Hassan sought to challenge the July 25, 2022 decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) that determined that the discontinuance of Veteran Readiness and Employment (“VR&E”) services to him under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. Chapter 31 was improper. Id. The Veterans Court dismissed Mr. Hassan’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Mr. Hassan did not obtain an adverse, final decision from the Board. Id. at 1–2. The court explained that 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a), its jurisdictional statute, requires that a Board decision be adverse for a claimant to obtain review by the Veterans Court. Id. at 1. Because the July 25, 2022 Board decision was entirely favorable to Mr. Hassan, there was nothing for the court to review. Id. The court noted that, if Mr. Hassan was dissatisfied with the service provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs through the VR&E, he could seek review of those issues. Id. For the reasons stated below, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
D3D Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation (Nonprecedential Opinion)
D3D Technologies, Inc. (“D3D”) appeals from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in an inter partes review determining that claims 1–18 of U.S. Patent No. 9,349,183 (“the ’183 patent”) are unpatentable as obvious. We affirm.
Hassan v. McDonough (Nonprecedential Opinion)
John Hassan appeals the order of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) that denied his petition for extraordinary relief in the form of a writ of mandamus. Hassan v. McDonough, No. 226701 (Vet. App. Feb. 13, 2023), App. 1. For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
D3D Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation (Nonprecedential Opinion)
D3D Technologies, Inc. (“D3D”) appeals from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in an inter partes review determining that claims 1–21 of U.S. Patent No. 8,384,771 (“the ’771 patent”) are unpatentable. We affirm.
In re IOENGINE, LLC (Nonprecedential Order)
IOENGINE, LLC petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“Patent Office”) to vacate its decisions ordering the underlying ex parte reexaminations and to terminate those proceedings under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). We deny the petition.
In re MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. (Nonprecedential Order)
MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. (“MSN”) “requests a writ of mandamus reversing or vacating the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia’s January 12, 2024 Order transferring this action to the District of Delaware.” ECF No. 2-1 at 11. We deny the petition.