This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case, one precedential opinion in a Vaccine Act case, one precedential opinion in a governments contract case, and one precedential opinion in a Takings Clause case. The court also issued one nonprecedential opinion in a tax case, one nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, and three nonprecedential orders. Finally, the court issued seven Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text of the orders, and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

Customedia Technologies, LLC v. Dish Network Corp. (Precedential)

Customedia Technologies, LLC appeals the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s final written decisions holding claims 1–6, 8, 17, and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 8,719,090 and claims 1–4, 6–7, 16–19, 23–24, 26–28, 32–36, and 41 of U.S. Patent No. 9,053,494 ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and finding claims 1 and 5 of the ’090 patent unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Because the claims are ineligible under § 101, we affirm the Board’s determinations. We do not reach the Board’s § 102 findings.

K.G. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Precedential)

In Fall 2011, K.G. received a seasonal influenza vaccination in advance of a total knee replacement surgery. Over the next several months, she experienced increasingly severe nerve pain in her hands, arms, feet, and legs. During the same period, K.G. succumbed to alcoholism, spent months in the hospital, and developed amnesia. In Spring 2014, an Iowa state court declared K.G. incapable of caring for herself and, against K.G.’s will, appointed K.G.’s sister as her guardian.

K.G. made a slow recovery and regained her mental faculties by May 2016. Shortly thereafter, she retained an attorney who filed a claim on her behalf pursuant to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (“Vaccine Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-1 et seq. Without reaching the merits of K.G.’s claim, the Special Master held that equitable tolling was not available during the period that K.G.’s sister was appointed as K.G.’s guardian and dismissed K.G.’s claim as not timely filed within the three-year statute of limitations. See K.G. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-120V, 2018 WL 5795834 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 17, 2018). The Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) affirmed. K.G. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 142 Fed. Cl. 240 (2019).

Arguing that she should not be barred from the benefit of equitable tolling merely because she was involuntarily placed under guardianship, K.G. appeals. For the reasons stated below, we hold that equitable tolling is available in Vaccine Act cases and that the appointment of a legal guardian is only one factor a court should consider when deciding whether equitable tolling is appropriate in a particular case. We therefore vacate and remand.

Office Design Group v. United States (Precedential)

Office Design Group appeals from an order of the United States Court of Federal Claims granting judgment on the administrative record for the government and Cuna Supply, LLC. Because Office Design Group fails to establish that the government’s evaluation of its proposal was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, we affirm.

Castillo v. United States (Precedential)

Reinaldo Castillo and others own plots of land abutting a railroad right-of-way that was long ago granted to, and for decades used by, the Florida East Coast Railway Co. in Dade County, Florida. It is undisputed before us that, when the railway company eventually abandoned the right-of-way for rail use (the purpose for which the right-of-way was granted), full rights to the underlying land—title unencumbered by the right-of-way easement—would have reverted to whoever owned such rights, had there been no overriding governmental action. But there was such governmental action: the railway company success- fully petitioned a federal agency to have the railroad corridor turned into a recreational trail. The landowners sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging that the agency’s conversion of the railroad right-of-way into a recreational trail constituted a taking of their rights in the corridor land abutting their properties and that the United States must pay just compensation for that taking. To establish their ownership of the corridor land, the plaintiffs relied on a Florida-law doctrine known as the “center-line presumption,” which, where it applies, provides that when a road or other corridor forms the boundary of a land- owner’s parcel, that landowner owns the fee interest in the abutting corridor land up to the corridor’s centerline, un- less there is clear evidence to the contrary.

In proceedings on summary-judgment motions, the government argued that the landowners did not own the land to the centerline of the railroad corridor at issue. The trial court agreed with the government, holding that the only reasonable finding on the evidence in this case was that the centerline presumption was overcome or was inapplicable. See Castillo v. United States, 138 Fed. Cl. 707 (2018) (SJ Op.); Castillo v. United States, 140 Fed. Cl. 590 (2018) (Reconsideration Op.). The landowners appeal. We conclude that the trial court misapplied the centerline presumption to the evidence. We reverse and remand.

Ellis v. United States (Nonprecedential)

Lamar Ellis filed a complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims, alleging that the United States owes him a refund of taxes for the 1998 tax year. The Court of Federal Claims held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Mr. Ellis’s claims and dismissed the complaint. We affirm.

Kontz v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)

Appellant Joseph E. Kontz appeals the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims’ (“Veterans Court”) decision affirming the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ (“Board”) denial of a non-service-connected pension (“NSCP”). See Kontz v. Wilkie, No. 19-0151, 2019 WL 3503995, at *1 (Vet. App. Aug. 2, 2019). Because we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss.

Customedia Technologies, LLC v. Dish Network Corp. (Nonprecedential Order)

In light of our disposition in Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., Nos. 18-2239, 19-1000, we dismiss this case as moot.

Customedia Technologies, LLC v. Dish Network Corp. (Nonprecedential Order)

In light of our disposition in Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., Nos. 18-2239, 19-1000, we dismiss this case as moot.

Castillo v. United States (Nonprecedential Order)

This court issued a precedential opinion in this case on February 20, 2020. Castillo v. United States, __ F.3d __, 2020 WL 827856 (Fed. Cir. 2020). On March 4, 2020, the government filed a petition for panel rehearing.



  1. The petition for panel rehearing is granted for the limited purpose of substituting the attached re- vised opinion for the previously issued opinion.
  2. The previous precedential opinion and judgment, dated February 20, 2020, are hereby withdrawn and replaced with the modified precedential opinion and judgment attached to this order. The only changes from the previously issued opinion are a revision of the sentence now on page 4, lines 22–29, and deletion of a phrase on page 7, line 22

Rule 36 Judgments