This morning, the Federal Circuit released three opinions: a precedential opinion in a patent case addressing claim construction, a nonprecedential opinion in a pro se case addressing disability retirement pay, and a nonprecedential opinion in another pro se case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc. (Precedential)
Appellant Axonics, Inc. appeals two inter partes review (“IPR”) determinations. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board held, in relevant part, that Axonics had failed to show that claims 1, 5, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 8,457,758 (“’758 patent”) and claims 3–6, 9–12, and 15–18 of U.S. Patent No. 8,738,148 (“’148 patent”), in patents owned by Medtronic, Inc., were unpatentable as anticipated or obvious. In each final written decision, the Board adopted a claim construction first presented in the patent owner’s response after the institution decision and declined to consider Axonics’ reply arguments and evidence under the new claim construction. We hold that the Board’s refusal to consider the new arguments and evidence was erroneous, and we vacate and remand for the Board to consider the merits of Axonics’ responsive arguments and evidence under the new claim construction.
Malcolm v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Pro Se Appellant Richard Ralph Malcolm appeals from the United States Court of Federal Claims’ (“Claims Court”) decision, in which the Claims Court upheld the Board for Correction of Naval Records’ (“BCNR”) denial of Mr. Malcolm’s request that the BCNR correct his military record to change the narrative reason for his separation to “disability” for disability retirement pay purposes and to remove derogatory information related to his misconduct. Malcolm v. United States, No. 20-505C, 2022 WL 4592894 (Fed. Cl. Sept. 30, 2022) (“Decision”). We affirm.
Conner v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Harry Conner appeals a decision from the United States Court of Federal Claims, dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim and also dismissing his motions for reconsideration and to amend the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Because Mr. Conner’s complaint was barred by the relevant statute of limitations, and because the trial court did not abuse its discretion when denying Mr. Conner’s motions for reconsideration and to amend the findings of fact and conclusions of law, we affirm.