This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and three nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Both nonprecedential opinions come in pro se cases. All three nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.
Sage Products, LLC v. Stewart (Precedential)
Sage Products, LLC (“Sage”) challenges the final written decisions (“FWD”) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) finding all challenged claims of two of its patents unpatentable. Becton, Dickinson and Co. (“BD”), the original appellee in this appeal, withdrew after filing its brief. The Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) then exercised her right to intervene, under 35 U.S.C. § 143, and continued the appeal by relying on the briefing already filed by BD. We affirm the judgment of the Board.
Akerman v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
In 2021, Martin Akerman, then an employee of the Air Force, filed a complaint with the United States Office of Special Counsel (OSC), alleging that the Air Force took retaliatory actions against him in violation of whistleblower-protection laws, 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) and (b)(9). OSC terminated its inquiry without providing the requested relief. Mr. Akerman also pursued another potential route for relief—through the Department of Defense (Defense) Office of Inspector General (Defense OIG). When Defense OIG declined to open an investigation, he asked the Intelligence Community Office of the Inspector General (Intelligence OIG) to review the Defense OIG decision, but it declined. Mr. Akerman then appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board), but the Board-assigned administrative judge dismissed Mr. Akerman’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, Board Supplemental Appendix (S. Appx.) at 10–22, and the full Board affirmed the administrative judge’s decision, which became the final decision of the Board, S. Appx. 1–3. We now affirm.
Taylor v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
James Taylor appeals a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) denying his petition for a writ of mandamus. Taylor v. McDonough, No. 23-4088, 2023 WL 8270335 (Vet. App. Nov. 30, 2023) (“Order”). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm in part and dismiss in part.