This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions and two nonprecedential orders. One of the opinions addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims. Another one of the opinions addresses an appeal from a summary judgment holding asserted patent claims ineligible for patenting. The remaining two opinions address appeals from judgments of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding certain claims unpatentable. The orders are both dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

Richardson v. United States (Nonprecedential Opinion)

Jesse Richardson appeals from a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“the Claims Court”) that dismissed his claim for reinstatement to the U.S. Army (“the Army”) and for back pay after finding that his retirement was voluntary.  Richardson v. United States, No. 2086C, 2022 WL 1744501 (Fed. Cl. May 31, 2022) (“Decision”).  He also appeals from the dismissal of his claims for correction of his military records for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Id.  For the following reasons, we affirm.

Savvy Dog Systems, LLC v. Pennsylvania Coin, LLC (Nonprecedential Opinion)

Savvy Dog Systems, LLC and POM of Pennsylvania, LLC (collectively, “Savvy Dog”) appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania’s summary judgment holding the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,736,223 ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  Because we agree with the district court’s conclusion, we affirm.

Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Life Sciences Limited (Nonprecedential Opinion)

Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic Vascular, Inc. (collectively, “Medtronic”) filed two inter partes review (“IPR”) petitions asserting that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7–14 of U.S. Patent No. 8,142,413 (“the ’413 patent”), owned by Teleflex Life Sciences Ltd. (“Teleflex”), are unpatentable.  The Board concluded in two decisions that the ’413 patent was not shown to be unpatentable over the asserted prior art.  Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Innovations S.À.R.L., No. IPR2020-01341, 2022 WL 443889 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 2022) (“’1341 Decision”); Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Life Scis. Ltd., No. IPR2020-01342, 2022 WL 444084 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 2022) (“’1342 Decision”).  Medtronic appeals, and we affirm.

Cardiovalve Ltd. v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. (Nonprecedential Opinion)

Cardiovalve Ltd. owns U.S. Patent No. 10,226,341, titled “Implant for Heart Valve.”  Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Edwards Lifesciences LLC (collectively, Edwards) successfully petitioned the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8–11, and 13–21 of the ʼ341 patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–19.  After review, the PTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board determined in relevant part that all of the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness over U.S. Patent No. 7,635,329 (Goldfarb).  Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Cardiovalve Ltd., No. IPR2021-00383, 2022 WL 2812478, at *40 (P.T.A.B. July 18, 2022) (Board Decision).  Cardiovalve appeals.  We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).  We affirm.