Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing a case. This morning, the court released three precedential opinions, four nonprecedential opinions, one nonprecedential order, and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. Of the precedential opinions, one comes in a veterans case and two come in patent cases. The nonprecedential opinions all come in cases on appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The lone nonprecedential order dismisses a case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances and dismissals.
Siples v. Collins (Precedential)
Clinton Siples is a veteran of the United States Air Force (Air Force) who was granted service connection for bilateral shoulder subluxation by a Regional Office (RO) of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). After that decision became final, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) decided Burton v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 1 (2011) (Burton), which deferred to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs’ interpretation of 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 as not limited to cases of arthritis. Mr. Siples then filed a motion alleging clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in the RO’s rating decision, contending that the newly interpreted § 4.59 would have required the VA to assign him a higher rating for his shoulder disability, which was not based on arthritis. The Veterans Court affirmed the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ (Board) denial of Mr. Siples’s CUE motion on the basis that, at the time of his rating decision, § 4.59 was not undebatably understood to apply to cases other than arthritis, and thus there was no error of the type required for CUE. Siples v. McDonough, No. 19-7957, 2021 WL 5919626 (Vet. App. Dec. 15, 2021) (Decision). Mr. Siples appeals. For the reasons explained below, we affirm.
Trudell Medical International Inc. v. D R Burton Healthcare, LLC (Precedential)
Trudell Medical International Inc. (Trudell) appeals the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina’s decision to allow D R Burton Healthcare, LLC (D R Burton) to present infringement testimony by Dr. John Collins at trial. Trudell also appeals the denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on infringement of claims 1–7, 9, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 9,808,588 or, in the alternative, a new trial on infringement of claims 1–18 and 20–26 of the ’588 patent (the Asserted Claims). See Trudell Med. Int’l v. D R Burton Healthcare LLC, No. 4:18-cv-00009, 2023 WL 2315391 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 1, 2023) (Post-Trial Order). We reverse the district court’s admission of Dr. Collins’ testimony and its denial of a new trial on infringement, and we remand the case to be reassigned.
Wuhan Healthgen Biotechnology Corp. v. International Trade Commission(Precedential)
Wuhan Healthgen Biotechnology Corp. (Healthgen) appeals a final determination from the International Trade Commission (Commission) finding (1) Healthgen’s clinical grade albumin products infringe claims 1 and 11–13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,618,951; and (2) Intervenor Ventria Bioscience Inc. (Ventria) satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement under subparagraph (a)(3) of 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (Section 337). Because substantial evidence supports the Commission’s findings, we affirm
Brown v. Office of Personnel Management (Nonprecedential)
Linda Brown appeals the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“board”) rejecting her challenge to the computation of her retirement annuity. For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss her appeal as untimely filed.
Marin v. Department of Homeland Security (Nonprecedential)
Stephen Marin petitions for review of a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”) upholding his removal from the Department of Homeland Security Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“the agency”). Marin v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. SF-0752- 21-0089-I-1 (M.S.P.B. Feb. 29, 2024) (“Final Decision”), S.A. 36–43. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Nelson v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
Petitioner Renee Nelson appeals the Merit Systems Protection Board’s final order dismissing her whistleblower Individual Right of Action appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Because the Board correctly concluded that she failed to nonfrivolously allege that the Department of the Army took a personnel action against her in reprisal for her protected whistleblowing activity, we affirm.
White v. Office of Personnel Management (Nonprecedential)
Beverly White appeals a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) affirming the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) denial of her request for a deferred annuity under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). For the following reasons, we affirm.