This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case, two nonprecedential opinions in related tax cases filed in the Court of Federal Claims, one nonprecedential opinion in a Merit Systems Protection Board case, and one Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the Rule 36 judgment.
HVLPO2, LLC v. Oxygen Frog, LLC (Precedential)
HVLPO2, LLC (HVO) sued Oxygen Frog, LLC and its CEO, Scott Fleischman (collectively, Oxygen Frog) in the Northern District of Florida for infringement of the claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,876,941 and 9,372,488. A jury concluded that claims 1 and 7 of both the ’941 and ’488 patents, the only claims tried, would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. After the jury verdict, HVO moved for judgment as a matter of law that Oxygen Frog had failed to establish obviousness, or in the alternative, for a new trial based on the admission of lay opinion testimony on the issue of obviousness. The district court denied HVO’s motion, and HVO appealed. Because the district court abused its discretion by admitting lay witness testimony regarding obviousness, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
Pekrul v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Gordon Pekrul filed a complaint with the United States Court of Federal Claims, alleging that the Internal Revenue Service, engaging in tax collection, had illegally collected some of his assets. The Court of Federal Claims held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Mr. Pekrul’s claims and dismissed his complaint. We affirm.
Pekrul v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Caroline Pekrul filed a complaint with the United States Court of Federal Claims, alleging that the Internal Revenue Service, engaging in tax collection, had filed counterfeit securities and billing statements against her. The Court of Federal Claims held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Ms. Pekrul’s claims and dismissed her complaint. We affirm.
Simon v. Department of Justice (Nonprecedential)
Anthony Simon (“Simon”) appeals from the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“the Board”) denying his request for corrective action on his nonselection for a position with the Bureau of Prisons. Because we agree with the Board that the agency proved by clear and convincing evidence that it would not have selected Simon even absent his protected whistleblowing activity, we affirm.