This morning, the Federal Circuit released seven nonprecedential opinions and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. Two of the nonprecedential opinions come in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, two come in veterans cases appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, one comes in a takings case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, and two come in response to petitions for review of decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as links to the summary affirmances.
Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Google LLC (Google) appeals final written decisions (FWDs) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) holding claims 1–5, 7–13, and 15–20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,134,398 and claims 1–7, 9–15, and 17–18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,593,330 unpatentable. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand.
In re He (Nonprecedential)
Zhengxu He appeals a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) affirming an examiner’s rejection of claims 1–22 of U.S. Patent Application No. 16/997,933 (“the ’933 application”) for obviousness. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Cantu v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Israel Cantu appeals from an order of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“the Veterans Court”) dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamus as moot. Cantu v. Collins, 2025 WL 2610186, at *1–2 (Vet. App. Sept. 10, 2025) (“Decision”). Because we lack jurisdiction over the appeal, we dismiss.
Gonzalez v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Daniel Rosario González appeals a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”). That court dismissed his appeal from a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) denying his claim for benefits. We affirm.
State of Mississippi v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Nine bellwether plaintiffs, including the State of Mississippi, appeal the decision of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing their complaints for a taking of a permanent flowage easement on their properties via the Government’s operation of the Old River Control Complex on the Mississippi River. The State of Mississippi also appeals certain discovery decisions by the Court of Federal Claims denying motions to compel discovery based on the deliberative process privilege. For the reasons discussed below, we vacate and remand the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of the State of Mississippi’s complaint and affirm the Court of Federal Claims’ discovery decisions.
Sanicola v. Department of Veterans Affairs (Nonprecedential)
Kathyo Sanicola worked as a Supply Technician for the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA or agency) in Saginaw, Michigan. During her probationary period, Ms. Sanicola drove a government-issued vehicle. VA policy required that Ms. Sanicola not commit traffic violations while driving the vehicle, and she was aware that VA electronically monitored her use of the vehicle to ensure compliance with that policy. In 2023, VA terminated Ms. Sanicola’s employment during her probationary period based on multiple speeding violations.
Ms. Sanicola contested her termination, alleging that she was terminated in retaliation for making certain protected disclosures to supervisors. After exhausting her administrative remedies for such whistleblowing complaints, she appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board. A Board-assigned administrative judge (AJ), after concluding that Ms. Sanicola established a prima facie case of whistleblowing retaliation for two disclosures, rejected her claim on the ground that VA proved by clear and convincing evidence that it would have terminated her even in the absence of those disclosures. Sanicola v. Department of Veterans Affairs, No. CH-1221-24-0252-W-1, 2025 WL 3241099 (M.S.P.B. Sept. 30, 2025) (Decision). That decision became the final Board decision. We now affirm the decision.
Hays v. United States Postal Service (Nonprecedential)
Casey Hays, a pro se litigant, petitions from a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) affirming his removal from his position with the United States Postal Service (USPS). Hays v. USPS, No. DE-0752-23- 0078-I-1, 2024 WL 3534733 (M.S.P.B. July 24, 2024) (Decision) (SAppx1 42–50). The Board found that Mr. Hays did not prove harmful procedural error. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.