This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinon in a contract case, two precedential opinions in patent cases, one precedential opinion in a veterans case, and two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Phytelligence, Inc. v. Washington State University (Precedential)
Phytelligence, Inc., appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Washington State University. Because we agree with the district court’s decision, we affirm.
Neville v. Foundation Contructors, Inc. (Precedential)
Plaintiff-appellants Steve Neville, Substructure Support, Inc., and TDP Support, Inc. (collectively, “Substructure”) appeal the district court’s ruling of summary judgment that certain accused products of Foundation Constructors, Inc. and Foundation Pile, Inc. (“Foundation”) do not infringe claims 1, 2, 4, 6–9, 16–20, 22–30, 32, and 33 of U.S. Patent No. 7,914,236 and claims 1–6, 25–29, 31, and 39 of U.S. Patent No. 9,284,708. We affirm.
Baxalta Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. (Precedential)
Baxalta Inc. sued Genentech, Inc. and Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., alleging infringement of claims 1, 4, 17, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 7,033,590. On December 3, 2018, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware issued a claim construction order, construing the terms “antibody” and “antibody fragment.” Following the claim construction order, the parties stipulated to non-infringement of the asserted claims. The district court entered judgment based on its claim construction order and the parties’ stipulation. Baxalta appeals the district court’s judgment, arguing the district court’s claim constructions were erroneous. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
Because the district court erred in construing the terms “antibody” and “antibody fragment,” we vacate the district court’s judgment of non-infringement and remand.
Garvey v. Wilkie (Precedential)
Diana Garvey is the widow of John P. Garvey. Mr. Garvey served in the Army from 1966 to 1970. Mrs. Garvey sought dependency and indemnity compensation and death pension benefits on the basis of Mr. Garvey’s Army service. The Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) denied Mrs. Garvey’s claim because Mr. Garvey was discharged from the Army for “willful and persistent misconduct,” and thus he was ineligible for benefits under the applicable regulation. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.12(d)(4). Mrs. Garvey now challenges the validity of Rule 3.12(d)(4) as being contrary to 38 U.S.C. § 5303.
We hold that the regulation is consistent with, and authorized by, the statute. Section 5303, contrary to Mrs. Garvey’s assertion, is not the exclusive test for benefits eligibility. A former servicemember is ineligible for benefits unless he or she is a “veteran” as defined in 38 U.S.C. § 101(2). To be a “veteran” under section 101(2), a former servicemember must have been discharged “under conditions other than dishonorable.” Id. The VA was authorized to define a discharge for willful and persistent misconduct as a discharge under “dishonorable conditions.” See 38 C.F.R. § 3.12. We therefore affirm.
Neville v. Aldridge Construction, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Plaintiff-appellants Steve Neville, Substructure Support, Inc., and TDP Support, Inc. (collectively, “Substructure”) appeal the district court’s ruling on summary judgment that certain accused products of Aldridge Construction, Inc. et al. (“Aldridge”) do not infringe claims 1– 4, 6–11, 14–19, 22–27, 29, and 32–33 of U.S. Patent No. 7,914,236 and claims 1–16, 19–22, 25–28, 31–32, 34–37, and 39 of U.S. Patent No. 9,284,708. This appeal involves the same asserted patents and disputed claim terms as its companion appeal in Neville v. Foundation Constructors, Inc., No. 20-1132 (Fed. Cir. August 27, 2020), in which we affirm the district court’s noninfringement ruling of summary judgment based on its construction of an “end plate having a substantially flat surface” and a “protrusion extending outwardly from the end plate.” We likewise affirm here.
Anacor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Flatwind Pharmaceuticals, LLC (Nonprecedential)
Anacor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., (“Anacor”) appeals from four final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) holding all claims of U.S. Patents 9,549,938 (the “’938 patent”), 9,566,289 (the “’289 patent”), 9,566,290 (the “’290 patent”), and 9,572,823 (the “’823 patent”) unpatentable as obvious. FlatWing Pharm., LLC v. Anacor Pharm., Inc., No. IPR2018-00168, 2019 WL 2385219 (June 5, 2019); FlatWing Pharm., LLC v. Anacor Pharm., Inc., No. IPR2018-00169, 2019 WL 2399836 (June 5, 2019); FlatWing Pharm., LLC v. Anacor Pharm., Inc., No. IPR2018-00170, 2019 WL 2396792 (June 5, 2019); FlatWing Pharm., LLC v. Anacor Pharm., Inc., No. IPR2018- 00171, 2019 WL 2385222 (June 5, 2019) (“Decision”). Because the Board’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and its conclusion of obviousness is correct, we affirm.