Opinions
on

Late Friday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, nine nonprecedential opinions, and four Rule 36 judgments. The precedential opinions come in a patent case and a case involving a claim under the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Act of 1976. The nonprecedential opinions come in various patent, veterans, and federal personnel cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the judgments and dismissals.

Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v. Sirius XM Radio Inc. (Precedential)

This case returns after we previously vacated the district court’s grant of Sirius XM Radio Inc.’s (“SXM”) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. See Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., 940 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Fraunhofer I”). Now on summary judgment, the district court again entered final judgment in favor of SXM, concluding that Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V.’s (“Fraunhofer”) claims for infringement of now-expired U.S. Patents 6,314,289, 6,931,084, 6,993,084, and 7,061,997 (“the asserted patents”) are barred by equitable estoppel. Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 17-cv-184, 2023 WL 4420414 (D. Del. July 10, 2023) (“Decision”).

We reverse.

Lobo v. Department of Justice (Precedential)

In the winter and early spring of 2010, Albert Lobo was a public safety officer (Deputy Sheriff, with Corporal rank) for San Bernardino County in California and was working at either or both of two county detention facilities (jails). He came down with pneumonia, which, progressing to sepsis, led to multiple amputations that left him permanently and totally disabled. Between 2012 and 2014, he was granted a disability retirement at the county level and workers’ compensation benefits at the state level.

Thereafter, in March 2015, Mr. Lobo filed the federallaw claim at issue here—a claim for disability-based benefits under the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Act of 1976 (PSOB Act), 34 U.S.C. § 10281, filed with the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Office (PSOB Office) of the Bureau of Justice Assistance (Bureau) of the U.S. Department of Justice. The PSOB Office (in May 2016), a hearing officer (in October 2017), and the Bureau’s Director (in August 2023) found that Mr. Lobo was a public safety officer who was permanently and totally disabled due to the severe complications caused by his pneumonia, but they nonetheless denied the PSOB claim, finding that Mr. Lobo had not proven that he caught the pneumonia in the line of duty, i.e., at the jail(s) where he worked. On Mr. Lobo’s appeal, we hold that the Bureau made insufficient efforts to obtain information that, considering the other evidence before the Bureau, could be highly material to a sound adjudication of the decisive locus-of-origin issue. We therefore vacate the Director’s decision and remand for further proceedings.

Acadia Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. (Nonprecedential)

MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. and MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, MSN) appeal an order from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granting summary judgment of no invalidity because it held claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 9,566,271 cannot be an obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) reference for claim 26 of U.S. Patent No. 7,601,740. Both parties agree this case is entirely controlled by our recent decision in Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd., 111 F.4th 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2024), which issued after briefing in this case was completed. Citation of Suppl. Authority at 1–2 (Feb. 24, 2025), ECF No. 27 (MSN 28(j) Ltr.); Resp. to Citation of Suppl. Authority at 1 (Mar. 3, 2025), ECF No. 28. MSN recognizes its only recourse is en banc action. MSN 28(j) Ltr. at 1. We apply Allergan’s holding that “a firstfiled, first-issued, later-expiring claim cannot be invalidated by a later-filed, later-issued, earlier-expiring reference claim having a common priority date,” 111 F.4th at 1369, and conclude claim 5 of the ’271 patent is not a proper ODP reference that can be used to invalidate claim 26 of the ’740 patent.

Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Cardiovalve Ltd. (Nonprecedential)

Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Edwards Lifesciences LLC (collectively, “Edwards”) appeal from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 10,702,385. In the final written decision, the Board granted Cardiovalve Ltd.’s (“Cardiovalve”) non-contingent Motion to Amend and Supplemental Motion to Amend, canceling original claims 1–10 and replacing those claims with substitute claims 11–20 and concluded that Edwards failed to show that claims 11–20 are unpatentable. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Cardiovalve Ltd., No. IPR2021-01051, Paper 36 at 58–59 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 2022) (“Decision”). For the reasons below, we affirm.

Gorrio v. United States (Nonprecedential)

Michael Gorrio, appearing pro se, appeals from the United States Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) decision to dismiss his complaint sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Gorrio v. United States, No. 24-354C (Fed. Cl. Apr. 11, 2024). S. App’x 1–5.1 For the following reasons, we affirm.

Jones v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)

William D. Jones appeals from the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) dismissing his case for lack of jurisdiction. Jones v. Dep’t of Def., No. DC0752-20-0273-I-1, 2024 WL 3202398 (M.S.P.B. June 26, 2024) (“Final Order”). For the reasons stated below, we affirm the Board’s final decision.

Li v. Apple Inc. (Nonprecedential)

Chian Chiu Li, proceeding pro se, appeals the Final Written Decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board), holding claims 1–6, 8–12, 14–16, and 18–20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,016,564 (’564 patent) unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See Apple Inc. v. Li, No. IPR2023-00560, 2024 WL 2750500, at *7 (P.T.A.B. May 29, 2024) (Final Decision). For the following reasons, we affirm.

McCarthy v. Social Security Administration (Nonprecedential)

Petitioner Eileen McCarthy seeks review of a decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB” or “Board”) affirming her removal from the Social Security Administration (“SSA”). We affirm.

Morris v. Department of Transportation (Nonprecedential)

Dr. Carl Craig Morris petitions for review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) reversing the United States Department of Transportation’s (agency) removal of Dr. Morris. Because the Board’s decision is not adverse to Dr. Morris, we dismiss.

Payton v. Department of Veterans Affairs (Nonprecedential)

Amy Terrell Payton worked as a Nursing Assistant with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In 2013, VA removed Ms. Payton from her position (for the first time), and she appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board. In 2023, she entered a settlement agreement with VA under which VA would pay her a lump sum and she would waive any pending or future claims. Government Supplemental Appendix (S. Appx.) at 42–45. Subsequently, she asked the Board to revoke the settlement agreement. A Board-assigned administrative judge denied the request and dismissed Ms. Payton’s appeal as settled, determining that the settlement agreement was enforceable and addressed all issues in her appeal. S. Appx. 9–10. Ms. Payton sought full Board review, but the full Board affirmed the administrative judge’s decision, which became the final decision of the Board. S. Appx. 1–3. We now affirm.

Shannon v. Collins (Nonprecedential)

Oliver Shannon appeals a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) affirming a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) denying a higher rating for his right knee disabilities. Because Mr. Shannon raises issues we do not have jurisdiction to review, we dismiss.

Rule 36 Summary Affirmances

Dismissal