This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. The first precedential opinions addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims regarding a military officer’s retirement status and affiliated retirement pay. The second precedential opinions addresses an appeal from a judgment of a district court in a patent case and affirms the district court’s indefiniteness determination but vacates and remands its nonobviousness determination. Both of the nonprecedential opinions address appeals from judgments of the Eastern District of Texas granting motions for summary judgment of noninfringement, and the Federal Circuit affirms in both cases. The nonprecedential order denies a petition for a writ of mandamus asking the court to order the reopening of a case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and selected text from the order.

Bader v. United States (Precedential Opinion)

Daniel Bader was a military officer who previously had held the rank of Colonel but had attained the rank of Brigadier General at the time of his application for retirement in 2012.  Following a finding that Col. Bader had violated 18 U.S.C. § 207(c) and 5 C.F.R. § 2635 and that his performance in the rank of Brigadier General was not “satisfactory,” Col. Bader was retired at the rank of Colonel despite his attainment of the higher rank of Brigadier General.  This determination affected his rate of retirement pay.  Col. Bader brought suit in the Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) for his allegedly lost pay.  The Claims Court granted the government’s cross-motion for judgment on the administrative record and denied Col. Bader’s motion for judgment on the administrative record, finding that there was no error in the decision to retire him at the rank of Colonel.  Col. Bader appeals.  We affirm. 

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Precedential Opinion)

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Janssen Pharmaceutica NV (collectively, “Janssen”) sued Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”) for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.  Janssen asserted U.S. Patent No. 9,439,906 (“the ’906 patent”).  Teva stipulated to infringement but challenged validity.  Relevant here, Teva argued that all representative claims were invalid as obvious and that claims 19–21 were also invalid as indefinite.  After a bench trial, the district court found that Teva had not proven invalidity on either basis.  Teva appeals. For the reasons below, we affirm the district court’s indefiniteness determination but vacate and remand its nonobviousness determination.  

AlexSam, Inc. v. Simon Property Group, L.P. (Nonprecedential Opinion)

AlexSam, Inc. appeals the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas’s grant of Simon Property Group, L.P.’s and Blackhawk Network, Inc.’s non-infringement summary judgment motions. AlexSam contends that the district court erred in its application of the stipulated claim construction of “unmodified” and that genuine issues of material fact exist. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

AlexSam, Inc. v. Cigna Corp. (Nonprecedential Opinion)

AlexSam, Inc. appeals a summary judgment decision holding that Cigna Corp. and its affiliates did not infringe AlexSam, Inc.’s multifunction card system patent. Because AlexSam, Inc. failed to provide sufficient evidence of infringement, we affirm.

In re Webb (Nonprecedential Order)

Samuel Webb petitions for a writ of mandamus asking this court to direct the United States Court of Federal Claims to reopen his case seeking compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (“Vaccine Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to -34.


Mandamus review does not afford him a second bite at the appellate apple. 



The petition is denied.