This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions and a Rule 36 judgment. Two of the opinions come in pro se cases, and the other is a revised opinion in a patent case. The original opinion issued in March. The revisions appear to add the identification of a patent claim that the original opinion did not identify. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.
Polinski v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Peter Joseph Polinski appeals from the decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) dismissing his complaint for lack of jurisdiction. SAppx 1–3. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Stenson v. Department of Justice (Nonprecedential)
Lorne Stenson served as a Deputy United States Marshal for the Department of Justice since February 23, 2007. In the present matter, Mr. Stenson has alleged that the Department took various retaliatory actions against him in violation of whistleblower protection laws, 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) and (b)(9). He sought relief from the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board). A Board-assigned administrative judge denied his request for corrective action, and the full Board affirmed the administrative judge’s decision with modifications. We now affirm.
Samsung Electronics Co. v. Power2B, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. appeal a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding claims 15–18, 21, 22, 26 and 30 of U.S. Patent No. 8,624,850 and claims 26, 29, 36–38, 44–46, 48, 49, and 56–58 of U.S. Patent No. 9,569,093 were not shown to be unpatentable. Power2B, Inc. cross-appeals the Board’s holding that claims 31 and 41 of the ’850 patent and claims 1, 5, 8, and 12–13 of the ’093 patent are unpatentable. For the following reasons, we affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand.