This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, three nonprecedential opinions, and a Rule 36 judgment. In the precedential opinion, the court affirmed a judgment of the Eastern District of Texas in a patent case. In the nonprecedential opinions, the Federal Circuit dismissed a case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, affirmed a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, and affirmed a judgment of the Merits Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and link to the Rule 36 judgment.
Salazar v. AT&T Mobility LLC (Precedential)
Joe Salazar appeals the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas’s judgment of noninfringement, challenging the court’s claim construction. Mr. Salazar contends that the court erroneously construed “a microprocessor” to mean one microprocessor, contrary to this court’s precedent. AT&T Mobility LLC, Sprint United Management Company, T-Mobile USA, Inc., and Cellco Partnership Inc., dba Verizon Wireless, Inc. (collectively, “AT&T”) cross-appeal the district court’s ruling that Mr. Salazar’s claims were not precluded based on prior litigation and challenge the judgment that the asserted claims are not invalid as anticipated. Because we agree with the district court’s claim construction, we affirm the judgment of noninfringement. Having affirmed the judgment of noninfringement, we do not reach AT&T’s preclusion arguments. Finally, we hold that AT&T waived its challenge to the jury’s verdict on anticipation by failing to move for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Fisher v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
Byron R. Fisher, a veteran of the U.S. Army, appeals a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”). The Veterans Court dismissed Fisher’s appeal of a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) that denied Fisher earlier effective dates for his disabilities. Because Fisher’s arguments are beyond the limited jurisdiction of our court, we dismiss the appeal.
Aljindi v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Dr. Ahmad Aljindi appeals the decision of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims denying his motion for summary judgment and granting the government’s motion to dismiss. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
Simmons v. Office of Personnel Management (Nonprecedential)
Tina Simmons appeals a decision from the Merits Systems Protection Board affirming the Office of Personnel Management’s denial of her request for credit under the Federal Employees’ Retirement System. We affirm.