This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case and addresses an appeal from a district court’s judgment that claims are invalid for lack of enablement. One of the two nonprecedential opinions stems from another patent case where the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found numerous claims unpatentable. The second nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the order.
Baxalta Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. (Precedential)
Baxalta Inc. and Baxalta GmbH (collectively, Baxalta) appeal the United States District Court for the District of Delaware’s grant of summary judgment that claims 1–4, 19, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 7,033,590 are invalid for lack of enablement. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Target Corp. v. Proxicom Wireless, LLC (Nonprecedential)
Target appeals decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board determining that claims 37 and 43 of U.S. Patent No. 8,090,359 and claims 25, 26, 28, and 29 of U.S. Patent No. 8,374,592 are not unpatentable. Proxicom cross appeals the Board’s decisions that claims 1–5, 14–18, 27, 31, 36, 42, 48, 49, and 52–55 of the ’359 patent are anticipated by and obvious over Perttila, and claims 19–23 of the ’592 patent are obvious over Perttila in view of Insolia. For the lead appeal, we reverse the Board’s holding that claims 37 and 43 of the ’359 patent have not been shown to be unpatentable and vacate and remand the Board’s holding that claims 25–26 and 28–29 of the ’592 patent have not been shown to be unpatentable. For the cross-appeal, we affirm the Board’s determination that claims 1–5, 14–18, 27, 31, 36, 42, 48, 49, and 52–55 of the ’359 patent are unpatentable.
Chin-Young v. Department of the Army (Nonprecedential)
Mr. Christopher Chin-Young appeals a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) denying his petition for review of the administrative judge’s decision to sustain his removal. Because the Board correctly found it did not have jurisdiction to decide the merits of Mr. Chin-Young’s detail to another directorate preceding his removal, and because the Board did not err in denying Mr. Chin-Young’s claims of whistleblower retaliation, return rights, or harmful procedural error, we affirm.