This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and one Rule 36 judgment. The precedential opinion reverses a grant of summary judgment in a patent infringement case and remands the case for further proceedings. The first nonprecedential opinion dismisses an appeal of a decision from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, while the second nonprecedential opinion affirms a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.
Contour IP Holding LLC v. GoPro, Inc. (Precedential)
Contour sued GoPro for patent infringement. According to Contour, several of GoPro’s point-of-view digital video camera products infringed its patents. After five years of litigation, GoPro sought summary judgment on grounds that Contour’s asserted claims were patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court agreed with GoPro and entered judgment against Contour. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Knox v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
Samuel Knox, Jr., a veteran of the United States Army, proceeding pro se, appeals a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”). The Veterans Court affirmed a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) denying him entitlement to service connection for a sinus disability due to herbicide exposure, dengue fever, and other conditions from his time in service.
The Veterans Court determined that the Board adequately explained its reasoning, the Board did not clearly err in its decision, and the Board did not fail to enforce the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) duty to assist. Because we lack jurisdiction over Mr. Knox’s appeal, we dismiss.
Stephens v. Department of Veterans Affairs (Nonprecedential)
Tess Stephens appeals from a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (the “Board”) denying her petition for enforcement of a settlement agreement. See Stephens v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., No. CH-0752-15-0370-C-2, 2024 WL 413800 (M.S.P.B. Feb. 2, 2024), R.A.1 1−8 (affirming Stephens v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., No. CH-0752-15-0370- C-2, 2022 WL 4290050 (M.S.P.B. Sept. 13, 2022)), R.A. 9−24). We affirm.