Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. This morning, the court released two precedential opinions and five nonprecedential opinions. One of the precedential opinions comes in a patent infringement case and, notably, includes an opinion concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part. The other precedential opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Three of the five nonprecedential opinions come in patent cases; one comes in an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; and the other comes in an appeal of a decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to yesterday’s dismissals.
Wonderland Switzerland AG v. Evenflo Company, Inc. (Precedential)
Evenflo Company, Inc. (Evenflo) appeals (1) a final judgment from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware holding Evenflo infringed claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7,625,043 and claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,951; and (2) a permanent injunction ordered by the district court. Wonderland Switzerland AG (Wonderland) cross-appeals the district court’s denial of a new trial on willful infringement. For the following reasons, we affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand for further proceedings.
Judge Reyna, concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part.
I concur with the majority’s disposition of Evenflo’s appeal. But I cannot join the majority’s determination on Wonderland’s cross-appeal for a new trial on willful infringement. Contrary to the majority’s decision, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding an email chain, i.e., the “Dracula Email Chain.” Rather, the district court’s balancing of considerations under Fed. R. Evid. 403 was careful and comprehensive.
Brimer v. Department of the Navy (Precedential)
David S. Brimer petitions for review of the Final Order of the Merit Systems Protection Board denying his request for corrective action under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998. Because Mr. Brimer was a federal employee seeking a merit promotion, 5 U.S.C. § 3304(f)(1) does not apply to him and we affirm.
RFCyber Corp. v. Squires (Nonprecedential)
Apple Inc. filed a petition with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board challenging claims 1–11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,018,724 as unpatentable as obvious over asserted prior art references. RFCyber Corp. appeals from the Board’s Final Written Decision determining all challenged
claims are unpatentable as obvious. We affirm.
Entropic Communications, LLC v. Charter Communications, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
This is an appeal from a district court order denying leave for a third party to intervene in a civil proceeding. We hold that the district court did not abuse its broad discretion in denying the third party’s motion for permissive intervention, and we therefore dismiss the appeal.
Oritz & Associates Consulting, LLC v. Vizio, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
This patent infringement action was brought by Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC (“Ortiz”) against Vizio, Inc. After the district court granted Vizio’s motion to dismiss Ortiz’s first amended complaint, Vizio filed a motion for attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which the district court granted. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
Laird v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Robert M. Laird appeals the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirming the Board of Veterans Appeals’ denial of an earlier effective date for Mr. Laird’s service-connected disability. Because Mr. Laird’s appeal presents no arguments within our jurisdiction, we dismiss.
Flatland Realty, LLC v. Secretary of the Army (Nonprecedential)
This case comes to us from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“Board”). Flatland Realty, LLC (“Flatland”) appeals the decision of the Board that awarded Flatland some, but not all, of the damages it sought on account of the breach by the Army Corps of Engineers
(“Corps”) of a lease agreement between the Corps and Flatland. Flatland Realty, LLC, ASBCA No. 63409, 2023 WL 7797531 (Oct. 30, 2023), Appx. 1–10. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 41 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(1)(A) and 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(10). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, and remand.