Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released two precedential opinions, four nonprecedential opinions, and a Rule 36 judgment. One of the precedential opinions comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; the other comes in an appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Of the nonprecedential opinions, one comes in appeals of a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; another comes in an appeal of a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board; another comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims; and the fourth comes in the form of a pro se petition for review of an arbitrator’s decision. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the judgment and yesterday’s dismissal.
Young v. Collins (Precedential)
James Young served in the military in the mid-1980s. In 1988, as a veteran, he applied to what soon became the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for service-connecteddisability benefits, see 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, based on asserted head injuries suffered in a car accident during service. In 1999, VA’s Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) denied the claim. More than two decades later, Mr. Young moved the Board to vacate its 1999 decision pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.1000(a), alleging that he had been denied due process. The Board denied the motion, and Mr. Young appealed to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court). The Veterans Court dismissed the appeal, reasoning that (1) the appeal was untimely insofar as it sought review of the 1999 Board decision, and (2) although the appeal was timely as to the vacatur denial, that denial was not an appealable decision. See Young v. McDonough, No. 23-5136, 2024 WL 706809, at *1–2 (Vet. App. Feb. 21, 2024) (Decision).
Mr. Young appeals to this court, challenging the Veterans Court’s second rationale. He argues that the Board’s denial of a motion to vacate under section 20.1000(a) is appealable to the Veterans Court. We conclude otherwise and therefore affirm the Veterans Court’s dismissal.
Palmeri v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Precedential)
Nicholas Palmeri petitions for review of a Merit Systems Protection Board (the “Board”) decision dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Board determined that it lacked jurisdiction because Mr. Palmeri, as an employee in the Senior Executive Service (“SES”) of the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), was required to appeal his alleged involuntary retirement only through a system established through regulation by the Attorney General. The Attorney General has not promulgated any such regulations, so this avenue does not exist. We conclude that the Board correctly construed the relevant statute and that the Board lacked jurisdiction. Mr. Palmeri may have a constitutional right to a posttermination hearing, but any rights, if they exist, must be asserted in a different forum, not before the Board. We affirm.
Apple Inc. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC (Nonprecedential)
Apple Inc. appeals the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, determining that Apple did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,191,083 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. For the following reasons, we vacate and remand the Board’s final written decision.
Apple raises two primary issues on appeal. First, Apple challenges the Board’s construction requiring the “plurality of antennas” to include at least some bidirectional antennas. Second, Apple argues that the Board erred by not addressing Apple’s alternative arguments made in response to Smart Mobile Technologies LLC’s claim construction proposed after institution. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
In re Laurel Designs, LLC (Nonprecedential)
Laurel Designs, LLC appeals the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirming the refusal to register Laurel Designs’ SAZERAC STITCHES mark. Laurel Designs challenges the Board’s determination that its mark is likely to be confused with registered mark SAZERAC. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Johnson v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Chantel Johnson appeals a Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) decision dismissing her complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to prosecute. See Johnson v. United States, No. 24-919C, 2024 WL 3617171 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 1, 2024); S. Appx. 1–2. We affirm.
Ray v. United States Mint (Nonprecedential)
Pro se petitioner Rodney Ray asks us to review an arbitration decision finding his removal from the United States Mint did not violate the Mint’s collective bargaining agreement with the local union. For the reasons discussed herein, we affirm the arbitrator’s decision.