Veteran's Challenge to TSA's Refusal to Waive Its Maximum Entry Age Requirement for Federal Air Marshal Position, Plus IP Matters - Federal Circuit
Federal Circuit - The FindLaw Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries Blog

Veteran's Challenge to TSA's Refusal to Waive Its Maximum Entry Age Requirement for Federal Air Marshal Position, Plus IP Matters

Morse v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 10-3030, involved a plaintiff's action claiming that the Transportation Security Administration violated his veterans' preference rights when it declined to waive its maximum entry age requirement in connection with his application for employment as a Federal Air Marshal.  In affirming the Merit Systems Protection Board's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, the court held that the TSA is exempt from section 3330(a) of Title 5, which provides Board appeal rights for preference eligible veterans.

 

Funai Elec. Co., Ltd. v. Daewoo Elec. Corp., 09-1225, involved a patent infringement suit pertaining to various electrical and mechanical components of video cassette players and recorders (VCRs).  The court affirmed the district court's judgment of infringement of three patents and the damages for the infringement, but reversed and remanded district court's determination of no successor liability in applying the South Korean law. 

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 10-1005, involved a patent infringement suit related to a drug for postmenopausal osteoporosis.  In affirming the judgment of the district court, the court held that the record amply supports the district court's conclusion that the ordinary artisan would not have considered it obvious to use raloxifene to treat postmenopausal osteoporosis.  Also, because the district court's conclusion that the Bone Loss Patents would not have been obvious, its conclusion as to the Low Dose Patent is affirmed as well.  The court also held that the district court did not err in concluding that the Bone Loss Patents and the Low Dose Patents were not invalid for lack of enablement, nor in invalidating the asserted claims of the Particle Size Patents for lack of written description.

Related Resources: