This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a patent case appealed from Northern District of California, and the other comes in response to a petition to review a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The nonprecedential order denies a petition for writ of mandamus to the Eastern District of Texas seeking to stay a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the order.
Helper v. Collins (Precedential)
After active-duty service in the Army in the Republic of Vietnam and in Kuwait, Edward Hepler applied for service-connected disability benefits for hypertension on a direct basis with the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”). The VA Regional Office (“RO”) denied entitlement. Mr. Hepler filed a notice of disagreement and appealed this denial to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”). Over 11 years passed between when Mr. Hepler filed his claim for benefits and when the Board issued a decision on his appeal.
While Mr. Hepler’s appeal was pending, Congress enacted the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act of 2022, Pub. L. No. 117–168, 136 Stat. 1759 (2022) (“PACT Act”), which creates a presumptive entitlement to service-connected benefits for hypertension for veterans who served in the Republic of Vietnam during a specified period based on exposure to Agent Orange. Benefits derived from the PACT Act may not be awarded for time prior to the enactment of the PACT Act. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(g); 38 C.F.R. § 3.114(a). The Board granted Mr. Hepler entitlement to service-connected benefits for hypertension based on the PACT Act. The Board did not directly address the direct service-connection claim, but “inform[ed] the RO that the evidence of record provides some indication that a relationship between the Veteran’s hypertension and service may exist on a direct basis” and that “[t]he RO should consider such evidence when assigning an effective date.”
Mr. Hepler appealed the Board’s decision to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”), arguing that the Board failed to grant, deny, or remand the direct service-connection issue and that the grant of such benefits would result in an award of benefits for a period before the enactment of the PACT Act because Mr. Hepler filed his direct service-connection claim in 2011. The Veterans Court dismissed Mr. Hepler’s appeal as moot because Mr. Hepler received entitlement to service-connected benefits under the PACT Act. Mr. Hepler appeals the Veterans Court’s decision.
We conclude that the Veterans Court’s decision is incorrect and that the Board was required to either grant or deny Mr. Hepler’s claim for service-connected benefits on a direct basis or remand with instructions for further proceedings on this issue. We reverse.
MPH Technologies Oy v. Apple Inc. (Nonprecedential)
MPH Technologies Oy filed a patent infringement suit against Apple Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, accusing Apple of infringing various claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,346,949; 9,762,397; 9,712,494; 9,712,502; and 9,838,362 (collectively, the “’949 patent family”); as well as U.S. Patent No. 7,937,581. At claim construction, the district court (1) construed the “secure” terms in the asserted claims of the ’949 patent family as limited to the IPSec protocol and (2) construed the term “unique identity” of the ’949 patent family as limited to SPI values, which are specific to the IPSec protocol. The district court also held claims 6, 7, and 8 in the ’581 patent indefinite. Following claim construction, the parties stipulated to judgment of noninfringement of the ’949 patent family and invalidity of the ’581 patent.
First, MPH appeals the district court’s constructions of the ’949 patent family’s “secure” terms as requiring the IPSec protocol and the ’949 patent family’s “unique identity” term as limited to SPI values specific to the IPSec protocol. We hold that the disputed terms are not limited to the IPSec protocol. Accordingly, we reject the district court’s claim construction, vacate the stipulated judgment of noninfringement, and remand.
Second, MPH appeals the district court’s determination that the last limitation relating to “the secure connection” in claim 1 of the ’581 patent is indefinite. We hold that a skilled artisan would understand the scope of “establishing a secure connection” with reasonable certainty, and we therefore reverse that determination, vacate the stipulated judgment of invalidity, and remand.
Salazar v. Department of Veterans Affairs (Nonprecedential)
Anthony Salazar petitions for review of a decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board denying corrective action under the Whistleblower Protection Act. Because we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that the agency would have taken the same personnel actions against Mr. Salazar absent his protected whistleblowing activity, we affirm.
In re Amazon.com Services LLC (Nonprecedential Order)
Amazon.com Services LLC (Amazon) petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (“EDTX”) to stay these patent infringement proceedings. Headwater Research LLC (Headwater) opposes. Amazon replies. For the reasons below, we deny the petition.