This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, five nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the International Trade Commission. One of the nonprecedential opinions in an appeal from a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, one comes in an appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, and three come in pro se appeals of decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The order is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.
Bissell, Inc. v. International Trade Commission (Precedential)
Bissell, Inc. and Bissell Homecare, Inc. filed a complaint at the United States International Trade Commission alleging that Tineco Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd.; TEK (Hong Kong) Science & Technology Ltd.; and Tineco Intelligent, Inc. violated Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337, through the importation and sale of wet dry surface cleaning devices that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,076,735 and 11,071,428. After conducting an investigation, the Commission barred Tineco from importing certain of its accused products that were found to infringe claims of the ’735 and ’428 patents. But, after the complaint was filed, Tineco redesigned the accused products; the Commission determined that Tineco’s redesigned products did not infringe certain claims of the asserted patents, and thus no exclusion order was entered for them. Bissell appeals the no violation finding as to Tineco’s redesigned products, challenging the Commission’s finding of no infringement. Tineco cross-appeals, challenging the Commission’s finding that Bissell has a technical domestic industry, as well as certain infringement findings relevant to both Tineco’s original and redesigned accused products. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the Commission’s Final Determination in full.
Extremity Medical, LLC v. Nextremity Solutions, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
This appeal arises from parallel proceedings. Extremity Medical, LLC (“Extremity”) sued Nextremity Solutions, Inc. (“Nextremity”) for infringement of U.S. Patent 8,303,589 (“the ’589 patent”) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. That action was stayed pending resolution of an inter partes review (“IPR”) of the ’589 patent. After the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“the Board”) final decision finding unpatentability, Nextremity moved in the district court to recover attorney fees and costs that it incurred arising from both the district court litigation and IPR proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The district court found the case was “exceptional” under § 285 and awarded attorney fees and costs to Nextremity for the district court litigation in the amount of $52,573 but denied attorney fees and costs to Nextremity in the amount of $343,660.86 for the IPR proceeding.
Nextremity now appeals from the final decision of the district court denying its motion for attorney fees and costs incurred during the IPR proceeding. See Extremity Med., LLC v. Nextremity Sols., Inc., No. CV 22-239-GBW, 2024 WL 4384202, at *1 (D. Del. Oct. 3, 2024) (“Decision”). Extremity cross-appeals from the exceptional-case determination and award of attorney fees and costs to Nextremity for the district court litigation. Id. For the reasons below, we affirm.
Martin v. Department of the Navy (Nonprecedential)
Dr. Batrina Martin formerly worked as a full-time Health Systems Specialist in Portsmouth, Virginia, for the Department of the Navy’s Naval Medical Center (agency). In April 2017, the agency removed her from federal employment under 5 U.S.C. § 7513(a), which allows removal “for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service,” based on four charges—specific absences from work not supported by required medical documentation, a larger set of absences over an extended period, untimely completion of work, and misuse of government computer resources. Dr. Martin appealed her removal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board), and in the proceeding, she submitted additional medical records. The Board-assigned administrative judge (AJ) affirmed the agency’s removal, without addressing those additional records. See Martin v. Department of the Navy, No. DC-0752-18-0363-I-1, 2018 WL 5018839 (M.S.P.B. Oct. 12, 2018) (Initial Decision); J.A. 44–57. The full Board affirmed the Initial Decision as modified by supplementing the analysis to address the additional medical evidence. See Martin v. Department of the Navy, No. DC-0752-18-0363-I-1, 2024 WL 2992960 (M.S.P.B. June 13, 2024) (Final Decision). Dr. Martin appeals. We now affirm.
Hill v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Donald Carlyle Hill appeals from a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“the Veterans Court”) dismissing his appeal from the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“the Board”) for lack of jurisdiction. S.A. 1–2. The Veterans Court dismissed Hill’s appeal because it concluded that the Board did not render a final decision adverse to Hill that would afford it jurisdiction to review the decision pursuant to 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252(a) and 7266(a).
Gonzalez v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Manuel Gonzalez, Jr., appeals a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) dismissing his appeal to that court for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
Prewitt v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
George Dunbar Prewitt, Jr. appeals pro se a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) denying a mandamus petition seeking to compel the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) to issue a decision in a pending case and for other relief. We affirm.