This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and one errata. The precedential opinion comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Northern District of California. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the errata.
Brack v. Collins (Precedential)
Priscilla Brack, the surviving spouse of veteran Bruce M. Brack, appeals a final judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”), which affirmed a Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) decision denying Mr. Brack an earlier effective date for service-connected cardiovascular disease. Two months before filing his notice of disagreement (“NOD”) seeking an earlier effective date with the Board, Mr. Brack requested a complete copy of his Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) claims file. Along with that request, he asked “for a 90 day extension from the date” on which he received the claims file “to submit additional supporting” argument to the Board. J.A. 129.
Mr. Brack’s extension request was denied 47 days after he received his claims file, in the same order by which the Board denied his request for an earlier effective date. Mr. Brack appealed both denials to the Veterans Court, where he argued that the Board’s failure to honor his request for 90 days to submit argument violated the Veterans Court’s “fair process” doctrine. The Veterans Court disagreed and affirmed the Board.
Ms. Brack now appeals to us. We assume, without deciding, three premises pressed by Ms. Brack in her appeal: that the “fair process” doctrine exists as a right distinct from constitutional due process; that it survives the enactment of the Appeals Modernization Act (“AMA”); and that it applies specifically within the AMA’s “Direct Review” lane. Given these assumptions, the narrow legal question we must address is whether a veteran who chooses the AMA’s Direct Review lane has a reasonable expectation that the Board must grant a request for 90 days – running from receipt of a claims file – to submit argument. Because such an expectation is, as a matter of law, not reasonable, we affirm the Veterans Court.
Viavi Solutions Inc. v. Platinum Optics Technology Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Viavi Solutions Inc. (“Viavi”) owns U.S. Patent Nos. 9,354,369; 9,588,269; 10,222,526; and 9,945,995 (collectively, the Patents in Suit), which each describe low angle shift (“LAS”) optical filters that are used in many three-dimensional (“3D”) sensing applications. As relevant here, Viavi accused Platinum Optics Technology Inc. (“PTOT”) of infringing its patents by selling a filter known as the 11246 Filter, “or a filter that is not materially different than that” into the American market. Viavi filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. After having its motion to amend denied, Viavi moved to voluntarily dismiss with prejudice. After the District Court granted this motion, PTOT moved for attorney’s fees. The District Court granted in part PTOT’s motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, finding that the case was exceptional. Viavi now appeals. We affirm the District Court’s judgment.