This morning, the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions and two nonprecedential opinions. One of the precedential opinions comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; one comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and one comes in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a patent case appealed from the Northern District of Illinois, and the other comes in response to a petition for review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Greenidge v. Collins (Precedential)
Marcos Greenidge appeals from the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims denying his application for attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. Because the Veterans Court erred in determining that Mr. Greenidge is not a “prevailing party” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A), we reverse and remand.
Hafeman v. Google LLC (Precedential)
Carolyn Hafeman appeals from final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in inter partes reviews of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,325,122; 10,789,393; and 9,892,287. The Board concluded that all challenged claims were unpatentable. For the reasons below, we dismiss-in-part and affirm-in-part.
International Rights Advocates v. Mullin (Precedential)
International Rights Advocates filed a complaint before the United States Court of International Trade, alleging that United States Customs and Border Protection has unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed action on IRAdvocates’ petitions urging Customs to investigate whether cocoa and cocoa products imported from Côte d’Ivoire are produced using forced child labor in violation of section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The Trade Court dismissed IRAdvocates’ complaint for failure to establish organizational standing. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
Melinta Therapeutics, LLC v. Nexus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
This patent case arises under the infringement provision of the Hatch-Waxman Act, 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2). Melinta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Melinta”), brought this action against Nexus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Nexus”), alleging that a Nexus generic antibiotic infringed two of Melinta’s patents. The district court found that Nexus’s generic product infringed Melinta’s patents and rejected Nexus’s argument that the patents were invalid. We affirm the district court’s decision as to the first of the two patents and decline to reach the issues raised with respect to the second.
Reynolds v. Department of Justice (Nonprecedential)
Petitioner Lance Reynolds was an employee of the Department of Justice (“agency”) employed as a Reentry Affairs Coordinator at United States Penitentiary Big Sandy in Kentucky, a law enforcement position. Mr. Reynolds, proceeding pro se, petitions for review of a Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) decision upholding his indefinite suspension by the agency following his indictment for sexual abuse. We affirm.