This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and four nonprecedential orders, which were all dismissals. The precedential opinion comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In this case, the Federal Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the Veterans Court. The first nonprecedential opinion comes in an appeal from a decision denying a petition under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The second nonprecedential opinion comes in an appeal from a district court, which found that a patent claim is invalid based on indefiniteness. Here are introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.
Freund v. McDonough (Precedential)
Appellants Mark Freund and Mary Mathewson (collectively “petitioners” or “appellants”) appeal from an order of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) dismissing their petitions and denying class certification.1 We conclude that the Veterans Court abused its discretion in finding that the adequacy and commonality requirements for class certification were not met.
We hold, moreover, that the case is not moot as to the class claims because it satisfies the inherently transitory claim standard. We therefore vacate the order denying class certification and dismissing the case, and remand for the Veterans Court to further consider its class certification ruling and, if a class is certified, to determine the appropriate relief.
Henkel v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Nonprecedential)
V.H.’s parents, Deidre and Alex Henkel (“Appellants”), filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which was established by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (“Vaccine Act”). The petition alleged that V.H. developed narcolepsy from the FluMist vaccine, and it sought compensation for that injury. A special master denied the petition; the Court of Federal Claims sustained that denial; and Appellants appeal, see 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(f). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
For the reasons below, we affirm. Because we write for the parties, we omit from this opinion other details of the factual and procedural background.
Neonode Smartphone LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co.(Nonprecedential)
Neonode Smartphone LLC (“Neonode”) sued Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, “Samsung”) for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879 (“the ’879 patent”) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. After claim-construction briefing, the district court concluded that claim 1 of the ’879 patent is invalid as indefinite. The district court entered final judgment against Neonode, and Neonode appealed to this court. For the reasons that follow, we disagree with the district court’s conclusion that claim 1 of the ’879 patent is indefinite. We thus reverse and remand for further proceedings.