Late yesterday the Federal Circuit released a precedential order in one of the court’s pending en banc cases instructing a party not to respond to the other party’s argument because it exceeds the scope of the court’s en banc rehearing. The court also released three nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. This morning, the court released three nonprecedential opinions, one in a patent case and two in pro se cases, and a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and precedential order and links to the dismissals.
Bell Semiconductor LLC v. NXP B.V. (Nonprecedential)
In this consolidated appeal, Bell Semiconductor LLC (“Bell”) appeals from the final written decisions in two inter partes reviews (“IPRs”), determining that 23 claims of U.S. Patents 8,049,340 (“the ’340 patent”) and 8,288,269 (“the ’269 patent”) were unpatentable. NXP B.V. and related entities (collectively, “NXP”) cross-appeal the final written decisions in those same IPRs with respect to 11 of the remaining 16 challenged claims that the Board determined had not been shown to be unpatentable. NXP B.V. v. Bell Semiconductor, LLC, No. IPR2021-000966 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 6, 2022) (“’340 Decision”), J.A. 1–81; NXP B.V. v. Bell Semiconductor, LLC, No. IPR2021-000967 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 6, 2022) (“’269 Decision”), J.A. 82–138. For the following reasons, we affirm the decisions of the Board.
Jones v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
Felicia N. Jones appeals a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court), affirming the Board of Veterans Appeals’ (Board) decision finding that Ms. Jones is not a veteran and therefore not entitled to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits. For the following reasons, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Cali v. Department of the Navy (Nonprecedential)
Peter R. Cali has appealed the Merit Systems Protection Board’s (“MSPB”) decision denying Mr. Cali’s request for corrective action of his removal. Cali v. Dep’t of the Navy, No. DC-1221-23-0197-W-1 (M.S.P.B. Jan. 12, 2024) (“Decision”). For the following reasons, we affirm
Ecofactor, Inc. v. Google LLC (Precedential Order)
The court granted rehearing en banc “limited to addressing the district court’s adherence to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), in its allowance of testimony from EcoFactor’s damages expert assigning a per-unit royalty rate to the three licenses in evidence in this case.” Google’s argument at pages 41–58 of its brief exceeds the scope of the court’s en banc rehearing, as its footnote 11 all but recognizes. EcoFactor should not address this argument in its response brief.