Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, and three Rule 36 summary affirmances. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in another patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. Notably, Judge Subramanian, sitting by designation, dissented. Another of the nonprecedential opinions comes in an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; one comes in an appeal from the Court of Federal Claims; and one comes in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions along with links to the orders.
Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc. (Precedential)
Moskowitz Family LLC (“Moskowitz”) appeals from decisions of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granting Globus Medical, Inc.’s (“Globus”) motion for summary judgment of noninfringement, construing the term “universal,” and denying Moskowitz’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) of infringement. For the following reasons, we affirm.
AlterWAN, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
AlterWAN, Inc. (“AlterWAN”) appeals from the stipulated final judgment of noninfringement of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware favoring Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, Inc. (together, “Amazon”). AlterWAN challenges the district court’s claim-construction rulings, upon which the stipulated judgment rests, and the district court’s exclusion of AlterWAN’s damages expert. We affirm the district court’s claim constructions and thus do not reach the exclusion of AlterWAN’s expert.
SUBRAMANIAN, District Judge, Dissenting.
I see no issue with the majority’s construction of the term “non-blocking bandwidth.” There’s just one problem. “Non-blocking bandwidth” isn’t a claim term in this case.
* * *
The ’478 patent has expired and it has a tortured litigation history. But these aren’t reasons to jump through hoops to reach an incorrect, and fatal, construction of the patent’s claims. With great respect, I dissent from the majority’s construction of “cooperating service provider.”
Ortiz v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Rene Ortiz appeals a United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims decision dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamus. In the mandamus petition, Mr. Ortiz sought an order compelling the Department of Veterans Affairs to reinstate him as a VA employee. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.
Polinski v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Peter Joseph Polinski appeals a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) dismissing his complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and the Claims Court’s subsequent denial of a Rule 60(b) motion under the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (RCFC) related to that judgment. We dismiss Mr. Polinski’s appeal of the judgment dismissing his complaint as untimely. As to the Claims Court’s denial of Mr. Polinski’s Rule 60(b) motion, we affirm.
Tobias v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
Ricky Bruce Tobias petitions for review of a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) dismissing as untimely his appeal of an Office of Personnel Management (OPM) decision denying him disability retirement benefits. Because Mr. Tobias inexcusably filed his appeal with the Board 386 days late, we affirm.