This morning, the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions, seven nonprecedential opinions, one nonprecedential order, and one summary affirmance under Rule 36. Of the precedential opinions, two come in patent cases on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, while the third comes in a veterans case on appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Of the nonprecedential opinions, three come in appeals from the Merit Systems Protection Board, two come in appeals from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and two come in appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The lone nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order and a link to the summary affirmance.
CQV Co. v. Merck Patent GmbH (Precedential)
Merck Patent GmbH (“Merck”) owns U.S. Patent No. 10,647,861. CQV Co., Ltd. (“CQV”) petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for post-grant review of claims 1–22 of the ’861 patent. In its final written decision, the Board concluded that CQV had failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the challenged claims are unpatentable. CQV Co., Ltd. v. Merck Patent GmbH, No. PGR2021-00054, Paper 56 at 2 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 2022) (“Decision”). On appeal, CQV argues, among other things, that the Board’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence because the Board did not consider certain relevant evidence. For the reasons below, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.
Sierra Wireless, ULC v. Sisvel S.p.A. (Precedential)
Sierra Wireless, ULC; Honeywell International Inc.; and Telit Cinterion Deutschland GmbH (collectively, Appellants) appeal a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) holding claims 3–5, 9, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 7,869,396 were not shown to be unpatentable. Sisvel S.p.A. (Sisvel) cross-appeals the Board’s holding that claims 1, 2, and 6–8 of the ’396 patent are unpatentable. For the following reasons, we vacate and remand.
Smith v. Collins (Precedential)
Daniel R. Smith, who is currently blind, underwent medical examinations upon entering military service in August 1964 and upon leaving in June 1965. Reports from both examinations noted that he had poor night and color vision and that his vision was correctable in both eyes. After his discharge from service, Mr. Smith filed several claims with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs or its predecessor Veterans Administration (VA for both), under 38 U.S.C. § 1110, seeking benefits for an asserted serviceconnected disability based on retinitis pigmentosa, an eye disease causing degeneration of the retina resulting in vision loss. An ophthalmologist examined Mr. Smith and opined that his retinitis pigmentosa preexisted his service and did not increase in severity during his service. After VA denied Mr. Smith’s claim on that basis, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) agreed, determining that the ophthalmologist’s opinion constituted clear and unmistakable evidence rebutting the presumption that Mr. Smith was of sound health when he entered service, and the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) affirmed. Smith v. McDonough, No. 21-3246, 2023 WL 3016311, at *1–4 (Vet. App. Apr. 20, 2023) (2023 Decision). Mr. Smith appeals. Given the statutory limits on our jurisdiction to review Veterans Court decisions, 38 U.S.C. § 7292, we dismiss Mr. Smith’s appeal.
Baker v. Social Security Administration (Nonprecedential)
Ms. Mitzi Baker appeals pro se a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which denied Ms. Baker’s petition for review and affirmed the administrative judge’s initial decision. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Davis v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Danny Davis left active military service in April 1993 and began applying to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for awards of or increases in already-awarded disability benefits, under 38 U.S.C. ch. 11, based on assertedly service-connected injuries. In 2015 and 2017, Mr. Davis filed three claims requesting increased disability ratings for service-connected conditions of the lower back and right ankle, benefits for deep venous thrombosis in his left leg, benefits for degenerative arthritis in his right shoulder, an earlier effective date and a rating of compensable disability for service-connected hypertension, and other matters not relevant to the present appeal. After VA’s relevant regional office denied those claims, the VA’s Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) (1) remanded the matters of entitlement to a higher disability rating for the back and right-ankle conditions, (2) found that the deep venous thrombosis and the right-shoulder condition were connected to Mr. Davis’s service, (3) granted a disability rating of 10% (not higher) for hypertension, and (4) dismissed the claim of entitlement to an earlier effective date for the award of benefits for service-connected hypertension. Mr. Davis appealed.
The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over the remanded matters, as well as the Board’s favorable findings of service connection and favorable grant of a 10% disability rating for service-connected hypertension. Davis v. McDonough, No. 22-4863, 2024 WL 935642, at *1, *8 (Vet. App. Mar. 5, 2024) (2024 Opinion). For service-connected hypertension, it also affirmed the denial of a disability rating higher than 10% and dismissed Mr. Davis’s appeal regarding an earlier effective date. Id. at *1–2, *8. Mr. Davis asks this court to review the Veterans Court’s determination. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
In re Strongbridge Dublin Ltd. (Nonprecedential)
Strongbridge Dublin Ltd. (“Strongbridge”) appeals from two decisions of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”), affirming the PTO examiner’s rejection of claim 16 of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/151,405 (the “’405 application”) and claim 13 of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/675,660 (the “’660 application”) as anticipated by the prior art reference Sansone. We affirm-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Key v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Willie A. Key, proceeding pro se, appeals the decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims dismissing in part and denying in part his petition for a writ of mandamus in relation to his case challenging the validity of a debt he owes the Veterans Health Administration. To the extent Mr. Key’s argument on appeal challenges the regulation authorizing collection of his debt while he contests it in an administrative appeal, we affirm the Veterans Court’s holding that this issue was improperly raised in a mandamus petition rather than as part of his appeal; to the extent he challenges the application of the regulation to his case, we lack jurisdiction and therefore dismiss this claim.
Mallonee v. Department of the Interior (Nonprecedential)
Michael Mallonee appeals the Final Order of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) affirming its initial decision to deny corrective action as to Mallonee’s termination. Mallonee v. Dep’t of Interior, No. DE-1221-16-0063-W-1, 2024 WL 2814682 (M.S.P.B. May 31, 2024) (“Final Order”). For the following reasons, we affirm.
WSOU Investments LLC v. Arista Networks, Inc.(Nonprecedential)
WSOU Investments LLC (“WSOU”) appeals from the final written decision of the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) holding claims 1–6 and 12–17 of U.S. Patent 8,472,447 (“the ’447 patent”) unpatentable as obvious over the combination of U.S. Patent 8,204,061 (“Sane”) and U.S. Patent 8,654,680 (“Subramanian”). Arista Networks, Inc. v. WSOU Invs., LLC, No. IPR2022-00231, 2023 WL 5033118 (P.T.A.B. May 30, 2023) (“Decision”). We affirm.
Wynn v. Department of the Army (Nonprecedential)
Dr. Kenneth O. Wynn appeals a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) denying his petition for enforcement of his settlement with the Army. For the following reasons, we dismiss.
VB Assets, LLC v. Amazon.com Services LLC (Nonprecedential Order)
The parties jointly move to stay or deactivate Appeal Nos. 2025-1113, 2025-1142, and 2025-1357 pending entry of final judgment. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.