This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential order and three nonprecedential opinions. The order grants a petition for initial hearing en banc in a case originally decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board. One of the opinions comes in a patent case appealed form the District of New Jersey, one comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and one comes in response to a petition for review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the order and opinions.
Jackler v. Department of Justice (Precedential Order)
Megan Jackler and Brandon Jaroch (collectively, “petitioners”) filed a petition for initial hearing en banc. A response to the petition was invited by the court and filed by the government. The court also accepted amicus briefs filed by American Federation of Government Employees, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, National Federation of Federal Employees, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations; Justice Connection; Senators Chris Van Hollen, Angela Alsobrooks, Tim Kaine, Andy Kim, Gary Peters, Mark Warner; Whistleblower Aid; and Merit Systems Protection Board Professional Association.
The petition and response were referred to the circuit judges in regular active service. A poll was requested and taken, and the court decided that the petition for review warrants en banc consideration.
Boston Scientific Corp. v. Stryker Corp. (Nonprecedential)
Boston Scientific Corp. and Relievant Medsystems, Inc. (together, “Boston Scientific”) appeal a decision of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denying Boston Scientific’s request for a preliminary injunction. The requested injunction would restrain Stryker Corporation (“Stryker”) from launching its OptaBlate BVN product on grounds that its sale would induce infringement of claims 16 and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,303,166 (the “’166 patent”). Because we agree with the district court that there are substantial questions as to whether Stryker induced infringement of the asserted claims, we affirm.
Rorie v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
James W. Rorie appeals a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims that affirmed a decision by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals denying entitlement to an effective date before November 18, 1988, for service-connected tinea pedis. See Rorie v. McDonough, 37 Vet. App. 430, 434 (2024). Because the Veterans Court determined that Mr. Rorie forfeited the arguments he now raises on appeal, we dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Gomez v. Department of Veterans Affairs (Nonprecedential)
Anthony Gomez appeals a final order from the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) denying his petition for review of his retaliation claims under the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA). Gomez v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., No. NY-1221-17-0105-B-1, 2024 WL 4564167, at *1 (M.S.P.B. Oct. 23, 2024) (Final Order). For the reasons below, we affirm.