This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and five nonprecedential opinions. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Texas. Four of the nonprecedential opinions come in pro se appeals, two of decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board and two of decisions of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The fifth nonprecedential opinion comes in an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Seagen Inc. v. Daiichi Sankyo Company, Ltd. (Precedential)
A jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas found that claims 1–5, 9, and 10 of Seagen Inc.’s (“Seagen”) U.S. Patent 10,808,039 (“the ’039 patent”) were not invalid for lack of written description or enablement. J.A. 57. The jury further found that Daichii Sankyo Company, Ltd. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, and AstraZeneca UK Ltd., (collectively, “Daichii”) willfully infringed at least one of the claims, and awarded Seagen damages exceeding $41 million. J.A. 56, 58–59. The district court denied Daichii’s post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) and entered final judgment in favor of Seagen. J.A. 32–52. Because we conclude that the district court erred in failing to grant JMOL for lack of written description and enablement, we reverse.
Hornberger v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
Kevin Bailey Hornberger petitions from a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) dismissing his appeal of a Library of Congress (“LOC”) decision for lack of jurisdiction. Hornberger v. Libr. of Cong., No. DC3443-24-0906-I-1, 2024 WL 4454328 (M.S.P.B. Oct. 4, 2024) (initial decision became final on November 8, 2024). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
Williams v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Appellant Willie Williams seeks review of the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“the Veterans Court”) that denied his challenge to a decision granting service connection for a disability only as of May 1998. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Soto v. United States Postal Service (Nonprecedential)
In 2023, the United States Postal Service (agency) terminated the employment of Louis J. Soto-Soto (petitioner). Petitioner then filed a grievance through his union, as permitted under the relevant collective bargaining agreement (CBA). While his union grievance was pending, petitioner also filed an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board). The assigned Board administrative judge (AJ) issued an initial decision affirming petitioner’s removal, and the Board affirmed. See Soto v. United States Postal Service, No. NY-0752-23-0059-I-1, 2023 WL 4051636 (M.S.P.B. June 13, 2023) (2023 Decision); Soto v. United States Postal Service, No. NY-0752-23-0059-I-1, 2024 WL 4457970 (M.S.P.B. Oct. 9, 2024) (2024 Decision).
Petitioner’s primary argument to us is that the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear his case because he had filed the union grievance. He also argues that the agency violated his due process rights because the agency allegedly failed to provide him with notice of his union grievance rights and the agency employee who removed him had an alleged conflict of interest. We affirm the Board’s determination.
Robinson v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Paul Robinson appeals a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) affirming a denial by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) of his claim to an earlier effective date for his total disability (“TDIU”) rating. Because Mr. Robinson only raises issues that are beyond our jurisdiction to review, we dismiss.
Seagen Inc. v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. (Nonprecdential)
The instant case is an appeal from a final written decision of the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) in a post-grant review (“PGR”) proceeding holding claims 1–5, 9, and 10 of Seagen Inc.’s (“Seagen”) U.S. Patent 10,808,039 (“the ’039 patent”) invalid. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. v. Seagen Inc., No. 10,808,039, 2024 WL 168076 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 16, 2024). It is a companion case to Seagen Inc. v. Daichii Sankyo Co., Ltd., Nos. 23-2424, 24-1176, slip op. (Fed. Cir. 2025), decided by this court today, where we hold that the same claims of the ’039 patent are invalid for lack of adequate written description and enablement. Id. at 12, 18.