This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a government contract case, two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases, two nonprecedential opinions in veterans cases, and one nonprecedential erratum. The court also issued two nonprecedential Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions, the text of the erratum, and the Rule 36 judgments.
First Mortgage Corp. v. United States (Precedential)
Appellant First Mortgage Corporation (“FMC”) filed a breach of contract action against the United States (“Government”) in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, alleging that the Government National Mortgage Association (“Ginnie Mae”) had violated the terms of several guaranty agreements between FMC and Ginnie Mae in connection with Ginnie Mae’s mortgage-backed securities (“MBS”) program. J.A. 23–58 (Complaint). The Government moved to dismiss FMC’s Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Rules of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”). J.A. 382–465 (Motion to Dismiss). The Court of Federal Claims granted the Government’s motion, concluding that FMC’s breach of contract claims were precluded under the doctrine of res judicata. See First Mortg. Corp. v. United States, 142 Fed. Cl. 164, 176 (2019); J.A. 1 (Judgment).
FMC appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). We affirm.
Medinol Ltd. v. Cordis Corp. (Nonprecedential)
This appeal challenges the denial of Medinol Ltd.’s request to reopen a 2014 adverse final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying such relief, we affirm.
Hayward Industries, Inc. v. Pentair Water Pool & Spa, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Hayward Industries, Inc. (“Hayward”) appeals from a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board reversing an examiner’s decision to reject claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,854,597 (“the ’597 patent”) as anticipated and reversing the examiner’s decision to reject claims of the ’597 patent as obvious. See Hayward Indus., Inc. v. Pentair Water Pool & Spa, Inc. (Board Decision), No. 2016-002780, 2019 WL 990776 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2019). For the reasons set forth below, we reverse-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand.
Watson v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)
Appellant Robert D. Watson appeals a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”), affirming the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ (“Board”) denial of entitlement to an effective date earlier than March 8, 2011, for the award of service-connected disability benefits for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (“ALS”). Watson v. Wilkie, No. 18-3688, 2019 WL 5607519, at *7 (Vet. App. Oct. 31, 2019); A. App. 1 (Judgment). Because we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss.
Harris v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)
Mr. Arthur L. Harris appeals a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”). The Veterans Court affirmed the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) decision that the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) properly deducted the amount of Mr. Harris’s non-service-connected disability pension from his service-connected disability compensation. We affirm.
Ubisoft Entertainment, S.A. v. Yousician Oy (Nonprecedential Erratum)
Please make the following change:
On page 8, Line 1, replace “[Board’s]” with “[district court’s]”.