This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and four nonprecedential opinions. The lone precedential opinion comes in a patent case on appeal from the Northern District of West Virginia. Of the nonprecedential opinions, two come in patent cases on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, one comes in a case on appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the other comes in a veterans case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Precedential)
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Regeneron”) appeals from a decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia denying Regeneron’s motion for a preliminary injunction. In re Aflibercept Pat. Litig., No. 1:24-md-3103, 2024 WL 4958308 (N.D. W. Va. Oct. 1, 2024) (“Amgen Decision”). For the following reasons, we affirm.
BillJCo, LLC v. Apple Inc. (Nonprecedential)
BillJCo, LLC appeals from the final written decision of the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board that claims 1 and 10–12 of the ’804 patent are unpatentable as obvious. We affirm.
Gonzalez v. Department of Education (Nonprecedential)
Roberto C. Gonzalez petitions for review of the Final Order of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) sustaining his removal from federal service by the United States Department of Education (“agency”), effective April 10, 2015. Gonzalez v. Dep’t of Educ., Docket No. SF-0752-15-0541-I-1 (April 19, 2023). Before his removal, Mr. Gonzalez served as Criminal Investigator (Special Agent) GS-1811-13 in Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General, Long Beach Regional Office, (“OIG”) in Long Beach, California. For reasons set forth below, we affirm the Board’s Final Order.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Lynk Labs, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (“Home Depot”) petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) for inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1, 2, and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 10,517,149 (the “’149 patent”). The Board instituted IPR as to all challenged claims. In a final written decision, the Board found Home Depot had shown claims 1 and 4 were unpatentable but had failed to show claim 2 was unpatentable. Home Depot appeals the Board’s decision as to claim 2. We reverse.
Lemmon v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
James A. Lemmon appeals pro se from an April 16, 2024 order of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”). Lemmon v. McDonough, No. 23-6836, 2024 WL 1632841 (Vet. App. Apr. 16, 2024) (“Order”). The Veterans Court dismissed Mr. Lemmon’s appeal because he filed his notice of appeal after the appeal deadline had passed, and he did not demonstrate that equitable tolling was warranted. Order at *3. For the reasons below, we dismiss Mr. Lemmon’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.