This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case, two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases, two nonprecedential opinions in veterans cases, one nonprecedential opinion in a takings case, one nonprecedential opinion in a Vaccine Act case, and one nonprecedential opinion in a tax case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Keith Manufacturing Co v. Butterfield (Precedential)

Keith Manufacturing Co. brought this lawsuit against Larry D. Butterfield in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Eighteen months after the litigation began, the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss all claims with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Shortly after, Mr. Butterfield filed a motion for attorney’s fees under Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court denied the motion because there was no judgment sufficient for a Rule 54 motion. In particular, the district court reasoned that under the Supreme Court’s decision in Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 137 S. Ct. 1702 (2017), a voluntary dismissal with prejudice is not a “judgment” as required by Rule 54(d). But in our view, Microsoft is inapplicable because judgment in the context of Rule 54 does not raise the same concerns about finality and piecemeal litigation that animated the Supreme Court’s opinion in Microsoft. Therefore, we vacate the district court’s decision and remand for further proceedings.

Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (Nonprecedential)

Uniloc USA, Uniloc Luxembourg and Uniloc 2017 (collectively, Uniloc) appeal the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas’ judgment of invalidity as to claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079. Because the district court did not err in holding claim 18 indefinite, we affirm.

In re Anova Hearing Labs, Inc. (Nonprecedential)

Anova Hearing Labs, Inc. appeals the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision on reexamination holding that claims 1–6, 9, 10, 12–39, 41–47, 49–58, and 63–70 of U.S. Patent No. 8,477,978 would have been obvious. Because the Board’s decision did not articulate a basis or rationale sufficient for this court to determine whether substantial evidence supports its motivation to combine finding, we vacate and remand.

Moore v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)

Dawn M. Moore appeals a United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) decision affirming the Board of Veterans Appeals’ denial of entitlement to an effective date before November 12, 2013 for the award of service-connected disability benefits for Ms. Moore’s post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Moore v. Wilkie, No. 18-1005, 2019 WL 1511214 (Vet. App. April 8, 2019). Because we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss.

Green v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)

Lee A. Green (“Green”) appeals from a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”). The Veterans Court affirmed the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ (the “Board”) decision denying Green’s claim for an increased disability evaluation for Green’s service-connected dermatophytosis for the period after June 24, 2009. Because the Veterans Court did not commit legal error in affirming the Board’s denial and because we lack jurisdiction to review challenges to the Board’s factual determinations or challenges to the application of the facts of the case to the law, we affirm.

Frazer/Exton Development, L.P. v. United States (Nonprecedential)

Whiteland Holdings, L.P. (“Whiteland”) and Frazer/Exton Development, L.P. (“Frazer/Exton”) (collectively “Appellants”) appeal from an order from the Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) granting the Government’s (“Appellee”) motion to dismiss Appellants’ physical takings claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Whiteland Holdings, L.P. v. United States, 141 Fed. Cl. 702 (2019), reconsideration denied,No. 18-1081L, 2019 WL 2158874 (Fed. Cl. May 17, 2019). The issue on appeal is whether the Claims Court erred in its holding that Appellants’ claim accrued in 2011 and that the six-year statute of limitations1 had expired prior to Appellants filing their claim. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

Sanchez v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Nonprecedential)

This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of Federal Claims (“the Claims Court”) reviewing the decision of a special master denying a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Vaccine Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq. Sanchez v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 142 Fed. Cl. 247 (2019). The parties, the special master, and the Claims Court judge have all put enormous time and thoughtful attention into this complex and difficult case. For that reason, it is with reluctance that we have come to the conclusion that it is necessary to burden the parties and the adjudicators with additional work. Nonetheless, because the record has left certain critical issues unresolved, we are required to vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings.

Sanders v. United States (Nonprecedential)

Mark Louis Sanders appeals an order from the Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) dismissing his complaint. We affirm.