This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion comes in a patent infringement case, answering the question whether an accused product infringes when it does not perform claim limitations in an allegedly required sequence. Both nonprecedential opinions come in appeals from decisions of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, one of which is a pro se appeal. The nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the order.
Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC (Precedential)
Sound View Innovations, LLC (Sound View) appeals a decision of the United States District Court for the Central District of California granting summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Hulu, LLC (Hulu). See Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, No. 17-cv-04146- JAK-PLA, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171867 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 25, 2023). The district court determined that Hulu does not infringe method claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 6,708,213 (’213 patent) because (1) the accused products do not perform the claim limitations in the required sequence; and (2) the accused products do not have the claimed specialized buffer. Because we agree with the district court that claim 16 requires that its first two steps be performed in the order that they appear in the claim, we affirm.
Morris v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Aaron W. Morris was awarded service-connected benefits for his post-traumatic stress disorder in a March 2015 rating decision. After a series of appeals and remands regarding effective date and disability ratings, the Veterans Court granted a joint motion for partial remand of an August 2023 Board decision. Mr. Morris was represented by counsel who consented to the joint motion.
Mr. Morris then dismissed his counsel and moved to recall the mandate, arguing that he did not consent to the joint motion being filed. The Veterans Court denied his motion to recall the mandate. Mr. Morris appeals.
Because Mr. Morris forfeited any rights to appeal the Remand Decision, which is a non-final remand order, and the Recall Decision did not decide a separate legal issue from the remand proceedings, we lack jurisdiction and must dismiss.
Johnson v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
David L. Johnson appeals from a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”), affirming the denial of restoration of his forty-percent rating for residuals of a right-ankle ligament tear and left-ankle sprain. See Johnson v. McDonough, No. 22-4199, 2023 WL 8108368 (Vet. App. Nov. 22, 2023) (“Decision”). For the following reasons, we affirm in part and dismiss in part.