This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a veterans case, a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, and a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.
Rodenhizer v. McDonough (Precedential)
Thomas Rodenhizer, a United States Army veteran, sought an earlier effective date for veteran benefits. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) denied an earlier effective date. Mr. Rodenhizer appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”). Mr. Rodenhizer died while his appeal was pending. Mr. Rodenhizer’s mother, Deborah Rodenhizer, moved to be substituted in her son’s place. The Veterans Court denied the motion to substitute, vacated the Board’s decision, and dismissed Mr. Rodenhizer’s appeal, concluding that Ms. Rodenhizer had not established her right to the benefits. We vacate and remand with instructions to hold the appeal and motion to substitute in abeyance pending the outcome of proceedings before the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) to determine Ms. Rodenhizer’s eligibility.
Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharmaceuticals L.P., and Rhodes Technologies (collectively, “Purdue”) appeal from the final judgment of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, which held all asserted claims of the five challenged patents invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 669 F. Supp. 3d 286 (D. Del. 2023). We affirm.