This morning the Federal CIrcuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and one Rule 36 judgment. The precedential opinion affirms a grant of a preliminary injunction by a district court in a patent case. The first nonprecedential opinion affirms a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and the second affirms a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to Rule 36 judgment.
Natera, Inc. v. NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. (Precedential)
NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. (NeoGenomics) appeals the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina’s grant of a preliminary injunction barring NeoGenomics from making, using, selling, advertising, or distributing the RaDaR assay. We affirm.
Hooks v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
James M. Hooks appeals the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) affirming the decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) finding no clear and unmistakable error in a 2002 administrative decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Hooks v. McDonough, No. 21-0731, 2022 WL 4285679 (Vet. App. Sept. 16, 2022). The VA found that Mr. Hooks’s discharge under other than honorable conditions was “considered to have been issued under dishonorable conditions” due to Mr. Hooks’s “willful and persistent misconduct.” See 38 C.F.R. § 3.12(d), (d)(4) (2002). Mr. Hooks makes the following arguments to this court: (1) section 3.12(d)(4) has no statutory predicate; (2) the plain meaning of “willful and persistent conduct” is ambiguous; and (3) the Veterans Court erred by relying upon a misinterpretation of the term “persistent,” as used in section 3.12(d)(4) as codified at the time of the VA’s decision. Because Mr. Hooks did not present these arguments to either the Board or the Veterans Court, Mr. Hooks may not do so here. See Gurley v. McDonough, 23 F.4th 1353, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (arguments not raised to the Veterans Court are forfeited). Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Veterans Court.
Lytone Enterprise, Inc. v. Agrofresh Solutions, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Lytone Enterprise, Inc. (“Lytone”) appeals from the final written decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) holding that claims 3 and 11 of U.S. Patent 6,897,185 (“the ’185 patent”) are unpatentable for obviousness over the asserted prior art. AgroFresh Sols., Inc. v. Lytone Enter., Inc., No. IPR2021-00451 (P.T.A.B. July 25, 2022), J.A. 1−42 (“Decision”). For the following reasons, we affirm.