Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. This morning, the court released one precedential opinion and four nonprecedential opinions. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and includes a dissenting opinion by Judge Dyk. Two of the nonprecedential opinions come in appeals of decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; one comes in a patent case on appeal from a district court; and the final nonprecedential opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to yesterday’s dismissals.
Kendall v. Collins (Precedential)
Sean A. Kendall appeals from a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) affirming a determination of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) that the Veterans Affairs Office of General Counsel (“VA OGC”) did not err in finding the attorneys fees Mr. Kendall received were unreasonable and, therefore, he had to repay the amount deemed excessive. Because 38 U.S.C. § 7263(d) deprives us of jurisdiction to review attorneys fees award decisions issued by the Veterans Court, we dismiss.
Judge Dyk, concurring.
I agree with the majority that Carpenter v. Principi, 327 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003), dictates the outcome of this case. I also agree with the majority that 38 U.S.C. § 7263(d) was not implicitly repealed. However, I respectfully suggest that Carpenter was wrongly decided. Carpenter failed to consider—indeed, it made no reference to—the presumption in favor of judicial review, a presumption “that we apply when we interpret statutes, including statutes that may limit or preclude review.” Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 579 U.S. 261, 273 (2016) (citing Mach Mining, LLC v. E.E.O.C., 575 U.S. 480, 486 (2015)). The text of section 7263(d), its specific legislative history, and the statutory scheme as a whole do not provide the required “‘clear and convincing’ indications” that Congress intended to bar review of all issues related to the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees in veterans’ benefits cases. Id. at 273. In particular, there is no evidence that Congress intended to bar review as to the validity and interpretation of rules set forth in statutes and regulations or constitutional issues. Under the majority’s decision, for example, a regulation that would bar non-attorney agents from recovering fees from their clients would not be subject to judicial review, even though fee agreements between veterans and non-attorney agents are expressly contemplated by 38 U.S.C. § 5904.
Manufacturing Resources International, Inc. v. Squires (Nonprecedential)
Manufacturing Resources International, Inc., (MRI) owns U.S. Patent Nos. 8,854,595 and 9,173,322, which describe and claim cooling systems for electronic displays. The patented cooling systems use a “constricted convection plate” to keep cool air flowing across the back of a hot display surface. Samsung Electronics Co. successfully petitioned the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to institute inter partes reviews (IPRs) of claims 1, 4, 7, and 8 of the ’595 patent and claims 1–5, 7–13, and 16 of the ’322 patent on obviousness grounds. The PTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) found, as relevant here, that the prior art discloses a constricted convection plate and that MRI’s objective-indicia evidence was entitled to little weight, and, as a result, the Board held all challenged claims unpatentable. Samsung Electronics Co. v. Manufacturing Resources International, Inc., No. IPR2023-00199 (P.T.A.B. June 18, 2024); Samsung Electronics Co. v. Manufacturing Resources International, Inc., No. IPR2023-00220 (P.T.A.B. June 18, 2024). MRI appeals. We affirm.
Tesla, Inc. v. Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC (Nonprecedential)
Tesla, Inc. appeals from a final written decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which found that Tesla failed to prove that the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,819,135 were invalid as obvious. Because the Board improperly construed a limitation of one independent claim but not of other independent claims, we affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand.
10Tales, Inc. v. TikTok Inc. (Nonprecedential)
10Tales, Inc. appeals the United States District Court for the Northern District of California’s grant of TikTok Inc.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We affirm.
Henrikson v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Peter R. Henrikson, after an extensive military career as a pilot, was serving in the Air Force Reserve in a position in which he was classified as a “Generalist Pilot” until he shifted to inactive status in 2016. This case, as now presented on appeal, involves his effort to secure disability-retirement pay specifically based on sinusitis incurred during his service. Mr. Henrikson sought correction of his records to list sinusitis as an unfitting condition preventing him from performing the duties of a Generalist Pilot, but the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (Board) determined that Mr. Henrikson’s sinusitis did not prevent him from performing his duties in his Generalist Pilot position because his duties were administrative in nature and did not include flying. Mr. Henrikson sought review in the United States Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court), which remanded to the Board for further consideration and explanation. Henrikson v. United States, 162 Fed. Cl. 594, 597, 610 (2022) (Henrikson I). On remand, the Board again found that Mr. Henrikson had not shown that his duties in his final service position (with a Generalist Pilot classification) included flying or that his sinusitis prevented him from performing non-flying duties, and the Claims Court affirmed the Board’s decision. Henrikson v. United States, 173 Fed. Cl. 46, 54–56 (2024) (Henrikson II). On Mr. Henrikson’s appeal to us, we affirm.