Today the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a government contract case, one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, and one nonprecedential opinion in a government contract case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Guarantee Company of North America v. Ikhana, LLC (Precedential)

This case involves a government contract dispute. After a contracting officer determined that Ikhana, LLC defaulted on a construction contract with the Army Corps of Engineers, Ikhana filed an appeal to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. Guarantee Company of North America (GCNA), a surety that indemnified Ikhana, moved to intervene because the indemnity agreement authorized it to assume all contractual rights in the event of default. The Board denied GCNA’s motion, finding that GCNA lacked standing. Appeals of Ikhana, LLC, ASBCA No. 60462, 17-1 BCA ¶ 36,871 (Oct. 18, 2017). Because GCNA executed its settlement agreement with the Corps after the claims at issue arose, we affirm.

WALLACH, Circuit Judge, concurring, in which DYK, Circuit Judge, joins.

I write not to contest the outcome of the above decision; it rests squarely on this court’s precedent. Instead, I raise a concern regarding the rationale underlying that precedent.

Alere, Inc. v. Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP (Nonprecedential)

Alere, Inc., appeals from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding, upholding certain challenged claims as not unpatentable. We conclude that the Board correctly construed the disputed “wherein” clause in claim 1 and affirm that limited portion of the Board’s final written decision. Because the Board improperly declined to institute review on certain claims and grounds included in Alere’s petition and its final written decision did not address those claims and grounds, we vacate the remaining aspects of the final written decision and remand for further proceedings.

DYK, Circuit Judge, dissenting in part.

The Board in this inter partes review proceeding held that the petitioner had failed to establish that dependent claims 3–5 of the ’019 patent are obvious, based on its construction of the claim language of independent claim 1. The majority affirms the Board’s claim construction. I respectfully disagree that the Board correctly construed the relevant claim language in claim 1.

Electra-Med Corp. v. United States (Nonprecedential)

Electra-Med Corporation, A2A Integrated Logistics, Inc., Zillion Solutions, Inc., and Alliant Enterprises, LLC (collectively, “Electra-Med” or “Plaintiffs”) appeal a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) refusing to grant injunctive relief in a bid protest case.

* * *

The decision of the Claims Court is affirmed to the extent that it denied an injunction for the contract terms expiring in April 2020, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.