This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case, one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, one nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, and one nonprecedential order. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the text of the order.
O.F. Mossberg & Sons, Inc. v. Timney Triggers, LLC (Precedential)
This is an attorney’s fees case involving a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Appellee O.F. Mossberg & Sons, Inc. sued appellants Timney Triggers, LLC and Timney Manufacturing, Inc. (collectively, Timney) for patent infringement. Timney pursued invalidation of Mossberg’s patent through post-grant proceedings for over five years. The district court proceedings were stayed during this time. Timney ultimately succeeded; the United States Patent and Trademark Office invalidated Mossberg’s patent for obviousness. Mossberg then voluntarily dismissed its suit under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and Timney applied for attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The district court denied Timney’s motion because, without a court decision with the necessary judicial imprimatur, Timney was not a prevailing party. We agree and therefore affirm.
In re Goplan (Nonprecedential)
Suresh Gopalan seeks review of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) decision affirming the examiner’s rejection of all pending claims of his U.S. Patent Application No. 13/926,096 (the ’096 Application) under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Ex Parte Suresh Gopalan, No. 2018–003363, 2019 WL 764513 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2019). Because we agree with the Board that the claims are directed to an ineligible abstract idea, we affirm.
Hope v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)
Michael Hope served in the United States Army. In 2008, he filed an application with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for disability benefits based on a back condition and a kidney condition. The VA’s Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied benefits. Although it found that Mr. Hope had been diagnosed with both disability-causing conditions, it found that neither condition was incurred in or caused or aggravated by his military service. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) affirmed. Hope v. Wilkie, No. 17-3167, 2019 WL 360003 (Vet. App. Jan. 30, 2019).
On appeal, Mr. Hope presents a single legal question— which records count, as a matter of law, in applying an exclusion from a presumption of pre-service physical soundness set forth in a regulation implementing a statutory provision. We have jurisdiction to review the legal question Mr. Hope raises. We conclude that the text of the regulation and statute, and the nature of the service induction process, confirmed in the specific circumstances surrounding Mr. Hope’s induction into service, require rejection of Mr. Hope’s legal contention and support the Veterans Court’s interpretation. Therefore, we affirm.
Banks v. United States (Nonprecedential Order)
Louis A. Banks and D.B., his minor child, (“Banks”) have previously unsuccessfully invoked the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (“Superior Court”) and the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) seeking damages for injuries allegedly suffered by D.B., primarily stemming from an incident involving alleged actions by school employees in the District of Columbia.
* * *
We carefully reviewed the arguments Banks presents to this court and the opinion of the Claims Court dismissing his complaint for want of jurisdiction. The Claims Court correctly held that Banks failed to present a claim over which the Claims Court has subject matter jurisdiction. Banks appears to contend on appeal that the Claims Court issued a default judgment in his favor, but the court merely granted Banks leave to file a motion for default judgment, a motion the court ultimately denied. We find no error in the judgment of the Claims Court, which we accordingly affirm. A number of motions filed by Banks relating to our review of his appeal remain pending. All such motions are denied. The Order of the Claims Court dismissing the complaint is
AFFIRMED
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The Order of the Claims Court dismissing the complaint is affirmed.
(2) Banks’ outstanding motions are denied.