This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case on appeal from a judgment of a district court and addresses patent law’s written description requirement. Both nonprecedential opinions come in appeals of decisions of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The order dismisses an appeal. Here are introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.
Duke University v. Sandoz Inc. (Precedential)
Sandoz Inc. (“Sandoz”) appeals from a judgment of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, holding that Sandoz failed to prove claim 30 of U.S Patent No. 9,579,270 (the “’270 patent”) invalid for lack of adequate written description. We reverse.
Lock v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Reginald L. Lock, Sr., an Army veteran and the original appellant in this case, was denied service-connected benefits. He appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, which held Mr. Lock failed to establish that his disabilities were service connected. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed, and Mr. Lock appealed to this court. Mr. Lock died while his appeal was pending, and his surviving spouse, Linda Lock was substituted as appellant. Mrs. Lock asks us to review her husband’s medical records and reconsider whether his disabilities are service connected. Because Mrs. Lock challenges only factual findings and the application of law to fact, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Young v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Preston E. Young appeals a November 22, 2023, decision by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Mr. Young alleged clear and unmistakable error in two rating decisions denying him compensation for a right-knee disorder. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied Mr. Young’s CUE claims. Mr. Young appealed to the Veterans Court, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction to consider his CUE claims because the regional office had not yet considered them. He also argued, for the first time, that the underlying regional office decisions were not final, and that all CUE claims contain an inherent challenge to the underlying decision’s finality. The Veterans Court agreed the Board lacked jurisdiction to consider Mr. Young’s CUE claims and vacated and remanded the Board’s findings. However, the Veterans Court declined to consider Mr. Young’s newly raised finality arguments.