Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released two new nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and two nonprecedential opinions. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Massachusetts. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the other comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as links to the dismissals.
Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Pfizer Inc. (Precedential)
Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Enanta”) appeals from a decision of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granting summary judgment that all claims of Enanta’s U.S. Patent 11,358,953 (“the ’953 patent”) are invalid as anticipated by a public disclosure of a compound within the scope of its claims. Enanta Pharms., Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 22-cv-10967-DJC, 2024 WL 5203036, at *9 (D. Mass. Dec. 23, 2024) (“Decision”). For the following reasons, we affirm.
Stiles v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Veteran Mark Stiles, dissatisfied with the ruling of the regional office of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) on two disability-benefit claims, appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board). The Board, rather than deciding whether Mr. Stiles was entitled to what he sought on those claims, remanded them to the regional office for further proceedings. That remand was not appealed, and undisputedly was not appealable, to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) under 38 U.S.C. § 7252(a), which grants the Veterans Court “jurisdiction to review decisions of the Board.” But Mr. Stiles had also asserted to the Board that the record revealed two additional claims, which he argued had not been adjudicated by the VA regional office; and as to those claims, the Board did not explicitly either remand or refer them to the regional office. Mr. Stiles filed an appeal to the Veterans Court regarding those claims, arguing that the Board had breached a regulation-based duty to refer them to the regional office. The Veterans Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Stiles v. McDonough, 37 Vet. App. 328 (2024) (2024 CAVC Decision). Mr. Stiles appeals from that dismissal. We affirm.
PACT XPP Schweiz AG v. Intel Corp. (Nonprecedential)
Appellant PACT XPP Schweiz AG (“PACT”) sued Intel Corporation (“Intel”) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging Intel’s computer-processor products infringed claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,312,301 (“’301 patent”) and 8,471,593 (“’593 patent”). PACT appeals the district court’s summary judgment of noninfringement as to both patents. We affirm.