This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions, a nonprecedential order, and three Rule 36 judgments. All four of the opinions are per curiam and come in pro se cases. Two of the opinions come in appeals from the Merit Systems Protection Board; one is an appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office; and one is an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The nonprecedential order summarily affirms a district court decision in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the nonprecedential order as well as links to the Rule 36 judgments.
Miller v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
James E. Miller appeals pro se from a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”). The Veterans Court affirmed a decision by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) denying Mr. Miller an effective date prior to March 9, 1994, for his service-connected disability. We dismiss.
In re McFadden (Nonprecedential)
Brian McFadden appeals the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirming the examiner’s rejection of certain claims of U.S. Patent Application No. 16/231,749 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112. For the following reasons, we reverse-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand.
Rose v. Department of the Air Force (Nonprecedential)
Nicole A. Rose appeals the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board sustaining her removal from her position in the Air Force for failure to fulfill a condition of employment. Because the Board’s decision was in accordance with the law and supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.
Gladden v. Department of Defense (Nonprecedential)
Brian G. Gladden appeals a Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) order affirming the Department of Defense (“government”) decision removing Mr. Gladden from his position as a Medical Support Assistant at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (“Walter Reed”). We affirm.
Lowe v. Shieldmark, Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
Plaintiffs Clifford A. Lowe and Spota LLC have appealed from the district court’s denial of their motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) seeking relief from a sanctions award we previously affirmed in Lowe v. ShieldMark, Inc., No. 2023-1786, 2025 WL 893211 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 24, 2025). The defendants have moved to dismiss the appeal as frivolous and for sanctions under Fed. R. App. P. 38. The plaintiffs oppose that motion.