Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. This morning, the court released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, and one Rule 36 judgment. The precedential opinion comes in a veterans case. Two of the nonprecedential opinions come in patent cases; one comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board; and the fourth comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the judgment and dismissals.
McKinney v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Precedential)
Hugh Campbell McKinney petitioned the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA’s) to institute rulemaking to expand coverage of the Traumatic Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (TSGLI) to include illness or disease caused by explosive ordnance. See Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance Traumatic Injury Protection Program, 88 Fed. Reg. 15,907 (Mar. 15, 2023) (Final Denial). TSGLI covers servicemembers who suffer a traumatic injury and is designed to fill a gap between the time the injury occurs and when other benefits are available. This program is overseen by the VA, which also has the power to issue regulations enumerating various injuries that are covered. As it stands, the regulation covers physical damage to a servicemember caused by, among other things, application of external force or chemical, biological, or radiological weapons. The regulation, however, does not cover an illness or disease, with a few exceptions. The VA denied Mr. McKinney’s petition to expand coverage due to several concerns, including that such coverage would be inconsistent with the types of injuries the TSGLI was designed to protect. Mr. McKinney now petitions this court under 38 U.S.C. § 502 to set aside the VA’s denial. For the following reasons, we deny the petition.
In re Blue Buffalo Enterprises, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Blue Buffalo Enterprises, Inc. (Blue Buffalo) appeals a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) affirming an examiner’s rejection of certain claims of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/136,152 as obvious. Because the Board did not err in construing “configured to” or “configured for,” we affirm the Board’s decision.
R.N Nehushtan Trust Ltd. v. Apple Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Appellant R.N. Nehushtan Trust, Ltd. (RNN) brought this patent infringement suit against Appellee Apple Inc. (Apple) in the Northern District of California. RNN owns U.S. Patent Nos. 9,642,002 (the ’002 patent) and 9,635,544 (the ’544 patent), which are directed to improvements in cellular communication device security. Specifically, to better secure a setting wherein a cellular device’s data may be read or edited, called “data mode,” the patents disclose an “access restrictor to restrict use of said . . . mode in accordance with a device unique security setting [(DUSS)].” J.A. 3419, 4:1–3 (’002 patent). This lock-and-key relationship is implicated in all claims asserted against Apple, whom RNN accuses of using DUSS validation during certain device updates and downloads. The district court granted summary judgment in Apple’s favor with respect to all claims. It did so because it reasoned that the patents required the DUSS be sufficient to unlock data mode, a requirement not satisfied by the accused features in Apple’s products. RNN appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
Duvuvuei v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
Rose Duvuvuei petitions for review of the Final Order of the Merit Systems Protection Board that dismissed her appeal as untimely. Because Ms. Duvuvuei untimely filed her appeal without a showing of good cause for the delay, we affirm.
Horton v. United States (Nonprecedential)
John D. Horton appeals a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing without prejudice his complaint seeking relief for alleged theft of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP”) benefits from his Electronic Benefits Transfer (“EBT”) account. See Horton v. United States, No. 25-853, 2025 WL 1648948 (Fed. Cl. June 10, 2025) (“Decision”). For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.