This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board involving claims under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. The court also released two nonprecedential opinions, one in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the other in a pro se case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Knox v. Department of Justice (Precedential)
Mr. Anthony W. Knox brought reemployment and discrimination claims under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301–35, seeking to retroactively correct both when he received a within-grade pay increase and when he was promoted. The Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) granted his within-grade increase reemployment claim but denied his promotion claims and his withingrade increase discrimination claim. Knox v. Dep’t of Just., No. SF-4324-20-0191-I-3, 2022 WL 4675449, 2–3 (M.S.P.B. Sept. 21, 2022) (Decision). Mr. Knox appeals. For the following reasons, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Ravgen, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (“Labcorp”) appeals from two final written decisions of the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) collectively holding that claims 55–63, 66–69, 80–96, and 127–133 of U.S. Patent 7,332,277 (“the ’277 patent”) had not been shown to have been obvious. Lab’y Corp. of Am. Holdings v. Ravgen, Inc., No. IPR2021-00902, 2022 WL 16579960 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 1, 2022) (holding that claims 81– 96 and 133 had not been shown to be unpatentable) (“00902 Decision”); Lab’y Corp. of Am. Holdings v. Ravgen, Inc., No. IPR2021-01054, 2022 WL 16641665 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 1, 2022) (holding that claims 55–63, 66–69, 80, and 127–132 had not been shown to be unpatentable) (“01054 Decision”). The Board determined that Labcorp had failed to demonstrate that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the asserted prior art references. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Cunningham v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Owen M. Cunningham filed a complaint before the Court of Federal Claims seeking relief for his involuntary discharge from the United States Army. The Court of Federal Claims granted the government’s motion for judgment on the administrative record, denied Mr. Cunningham’s cross-motion for judgment on the administrative record, and denied the government’s motion to dismiss as moot. Cunningham v. United States, No. 22-1826, 2023 WL 8852607, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 21, 2023) (“Decision”). For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.