This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and three Rule 36 judgments. The precedential opinion vacates a judgment of non-infringement, reverses an exclusion of testimony, and remands a patent case for further proceedings. The first nonprecedential opinion affirms a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims in a case in which a veteran requested a retroactive promotion. The second nonprecedential opinion dismisses an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.
Parkervision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc. (Precedential)
More than nine years ago, we affirmed a judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) of non-infringement in a patent infringement action brought by ParkerVision, Inc. (“ParkerVision”) against Qualcomm Inc. (“Qualcomm”) relating to wireless communications technology. ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., 621 F. App’x 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“ParkerVision I”). ParkerVision also filed a second infringement suit against Qualcomm on different but related patents. The latter case, which we will refer to as the “2014 Action,” concluded with the district court granting Qualcomm’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement based on collateral estoppel arising from ParkerVision I. ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., 2022 WL 1230505 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 22, 2022). The district court also granted Qualcomm’s motions to exclude certain testimony ParkerVision had proposed to present through its validity and infringement experts (“Daubert motions”). ParkerVision now appeals the disposition of the 2014 Action. We vacate the judgment of non-infringement, reverse the exclusion of testimony, and remand for further proceedings.
Conti v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Leslie J. Conti retired from the Texas Air National Guard effective May 2018 at the rank and grade of E-6 (technical sergeant). After her retirement, she asked the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (Board) to award her a retroactive promotion to the rank and grade of E-7 (master sergeant), with associated back pay and other benefits. The Board denied the request. When Ms. Conti sued the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) to challenge the Board’s decision, the Claims Court dismissed the complaint, under Court of Federal Claims Rule (RCFC) 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Conti v. United States, 168 Fed. Cl. 547 (2023) (Decision). On Ms. Conti’s appeal, of which we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3), we affirm.
Taylor v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
Trevor Spencer Taylor, a veteran, appeals from a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“the Veterans Court”). SAppx7–17.2 He seeks a service connection for bilateral hearing loss. For the following reasons, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.