This morning the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a tax case, two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases, and one nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case. The court also issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

Nelson v. United States (Nonprecedential)

Faith N. Nelson appeals a decision by the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) dismissing her complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm the dismissal.

British Telecommunications v. IAC/InterActiveCorp (Nonprecedential)

British Telecommunications PLC owns U.S. Patent No. 6,397,040, which describes and claims methods, systems, and apparatuses for selecting information sources to provide to a user via a telecommunication system. British Telecom sued IAC/InterActiveCorp and several of its subsidiaries (collectively, IAC) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that IAC infringed six British Telecom patents, including the ’040 patent. The district court held that all claims of the ’040 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. British Telecommunications PLC v. IAC/InterActiveCorp, 381 F. Supp. 3d 293 (D. Del. 2019) (Merits Opinion). British Telecom appeals. We affirm.

Huang v. MediaTek USA, Inc. (Nonprecedential)

This appeal arises from an action for patent infringement. Xiaohua Huang accused MediaTek USA Inc., formerly known as Nephos Inc., of infringing certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,744,653 and 6,999,331, directed to ternary content addressable memory technology used in semiconductor chips. Mr. Huang challenges the district court’s decision striking his infringement contentions and dismissing the action with prejudice based on Mr. Huang’s repeated failures to comply with the Patent Local Rules of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Mr. Huang also challenges the district court’s denial of his motion for sanctions, as well as his motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking the contentions, dismissing the action, or denying Mr. Huang’s motions, we affirm.

Hollie v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)

Cherrie A. Hollie appeals the November 27, 2019 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) in Hollie v. Wilkie, No. 19-1265, 2019 WL 6334692 (Vet. App. Nov. 27, 2019). In that decision, the Veterans Court affirmed the December 27, 2018 decision of the Board of Veterans Appeals (“Board”) that denied Ms. Hollie recognition as the surviving spouse of veteran Charlie Hollie for purposes of entitlement to survivor benefits. Suppl. App. 8. For the reasons stated below, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Rule 36 Judgments