Today the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and a nonprecedential order. 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 vaccine case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. Both of the nonprecedential opinions come in patent cases, one appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the other from a district court. The order is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.
Hernandez v. Collins (Precedential)
Christopher Michael Hernandez appeals from a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”). The Veterans Court affirmed a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“the Board”) denying Hernandez service connection for various injuries. Hernandez v. McDonough, No. 23-4193, 2024 WL 2977383 (Vet. App. June 13, 2024) (“Decision”); J.A. 102–116 (“Board Decision”). For the following reasons, we affirm.
Dental Monitoring SAS v. Align Technology, Inc. (Precedential)
Dental Monitoring SAS (“Dental Monitoring”) appeals from an inter partes review (“IPR”) final written decision of the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) determining that claims 1–15 of U.S. Patent 10,755,409 (“the ’409 patent”) had been shown to be unpatentable as obvious. Align Tech., Inc. v. Dental Monitoring SAS, IPR2023-1369, 2025 WL 676732 (PTAB Mar. 3, 2025), J.A. 1–84 (“Decision”). For the following reasons, we vacate the Board’s decision and remand for further consideration in accordance with this opinion.
Chitlik v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Precedential)
Laurence Chitlik, who was at the time proceeding pro se, mailed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Program”) via certified first-class mail to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ten days before the expiration of the statute of limitations. The petition was received and filed one day beyond the limitations period due to U.S. Postal Service (“USPS”) delay, and Mr. Chitlik sought application of equitable tolling. The special master denied Mr. Chitlik’s request, finding that he was not reasonably diligent in pursuing his claim and that the USPS delay was not an extraordinary circumstance that prevented timely filing. The Court of Federal Claims affirmed the special master’s finding regarding a lack of reasonable diligence but did not address the issue of extraordinary circumstances. We reverse the finding that Mr. Chitlik failed to exercise reasonable diligence. We further vacate the special master’s finding of no extraordinary circumstances and remand for further proceedings on that issue.
VL Collective IP, LLC v. Netflix, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
VL Collective IP, LLC (“VideoLabs”) appeals the October 2, 2024 final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) determining that claims 1–24 of VideoLabs’ U.S. Patent No. 7,440,559 (“the ’559 patent”) are unpatentable. Netflix, Inc. v. VL Collective IP LLC, No. IPR2023-00630, 2024 WL 4374920 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 2024), J.A. 1–60. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
iCharts LLC v. Tableau Software, LLC (Nonprecedential)
iCharts LLC appeals the United States District Court for the Northern District of California’s grant of Tableau Software, LLC’s motion for judgment on the pleadings of patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We affirm.