This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case, two nonprecedential opinions in veterans cases, and one nonprecedential opinion in a government contracts case.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

In re Bolero Global Ltd. (Precedential)

Boloro Global Limited moves to vacate and remand the underlying decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in these appeals from the Board’s decisions in ex parte appeals, affirming the examiner’s rejection of claims in Boloro’s patent applications. The Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office opposes the motion. Both parties have filed supplemental briefing in support of their respective positions.

* * *

IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) Boloro’s motion to vacate and remand is granted. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Board for proceedings consistent with this court’s decision in Arthrex. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

Robert v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)

Appellant Patricia A. Robert is the surviving spouse of Veteran Freddie L. Robert, who served in the United States Army from August 1977 to March 1997. His service included service in Southwest Asia during the Persian Gulf War. He died on February 10, 2008, six days after he underwent a cardiac catheterization examination. The issue is whether there is service-connection to the cause of death.

* * *

The appeal presents only factual questions, and is not within our appellate jurisdiction. Dismissed, with no costs.

Skinner v. Department of Veterans Affairs (Nonprecedential)

Glenda Christina Skinner appeals from the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“the Board”) in Skinner v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, No. AT-1221-18-0632-W-1 (Sept. 23, 2019), denying her request for corrective action for alleged whistleblower reprisal. App. 4–22. For the following reasons, we affirm.

Lee v. United States (Nonprecedential)

Dr. Sin Hang Lee appeals the United States Court of Federal Claims’ decision dismissing his amended complaint for failure to sufficiently allege facts demonstrating formation of an implied-in-fact contract with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Because we conclude that the trial court did not err in holding that Dr. Lee’s amended complaint failed to allege an offer to contract, acceptance, or authority to contract, we affirm.