This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a design patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Arkansas. The Federal Circuit also released six nonprecedential opinions in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware, two cases appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, a case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and two cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Federal Circuit also released a summary affirmance under Rule 36. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the summary affirmance.
PS Products Inc. v. Panther Trading Co. (Precedential)
PS Products, Inc. and Mr. Billy Pennington (collectively, PSP) appeal an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granting Panther Trading Company, Inc.’s (Panther) motion for sanctions. Because the district court did not apply an incorrect legal standard or abuse its discretion when awarding sanctions under its inherent power, we affirm. Panther requests attorney fees and costs for this appeal, arguing PSP’s appeal is frivolous as argued. We decline to award attorney fees.
Galderma Laboratories, L.P. v. Lupin Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Galderma Laboratories, L.P., TCD Royalty Sub LP (Galderma) appeals a decision from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware finding Lupin Inc. and Lupin Ltd.’s (collectively, Lupin) abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) does not infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,749,532 or U.S. Patent No. 8,206,740 (the Asserted Patents). Galderma Lab’ys L.P. v. Lupin Inc. & Lupin Ltd., No. 21-CV-1710, 2024 WL 1571686 (D. Del. Mar. 22, 2024) (Decision). For the following reasons, we affirm.
El Malik v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Rashid El Malik, a service-disabled veteran, was granted certain veterans benefits under Title 38, United States Code, by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The statutory benefits, provided to enable independent living, consisted of improvements to Mr. El Malik’s home. VA entered into a contract with Moderno, Inc., a construction company, for Moderno to perform the construction work. Dissatisfied with the work being done, Mr. El Malik sought relief through various routes. Before us now is his action in the United States in the Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), asserting a government breach of the VA-Moderno contract. The Claims Court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. El Malik v. United States, 170 Fed. Cl. 590 (2024) (Claims Court Decision). We affirm.
DeWeese v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Pro se Appellant Lisa Ann Deweese appeals a judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing her complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm
Champagne v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
Julien P. Champagne appeals from the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) affirming the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ (“Board”) denial of an effective date earlier than July 14, 2003, for service connection for Mr. Champagne’s cerebellar degenerative disorder (“CDD”). Champagne v. McDonough, 2022 WL 2663589 (Vet. App. Jul. 11, 2022). We affirm.
Watkins v. Office of Personnel Management (Nonprecedential)
Ronald Keith Watkins, Sr. has appealed the Merit Systems Protection Board’s (“MSPB”) final decision dismissing his appeal as barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Watkins v. OPM, No. DC-0841-24-0501-I-1, 2024 WL 3077398 (M.S.P.B. May 31, 2024) (“Decision”). For the following reasons, we affirm.
Howard v. Department of Justice (Nonprecedential)
Pro se appellant Carol H. Howard appeals a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board denying her request for corrective action. For the following reasons, we affirm the Board’s decision.