This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Little Tucker Act case; four nonprecedential opinions in a case concerning the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims, an MSPB case, a veterans case, and a patent case; and a Rule 36 summary affirmance. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the Rule 36 judgment.
National Veterans Legal Services Program v. United States (Precedential)
These interlocutory cross-appeals challenge the district court’s interpretation of a statutory note to 28 U.S.C. § 1913 permitting the federal judiciary to charge “reasonable fees” for “access to information available through automatic data processing equipment.” Plaintiffs contend that under this provision unlawfully excessive fees have been charged for accessing federal court records through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system and that the district court identifies too little unlawful excess. The government argues that the district court identifies too much (and also that the district court lacked jurisdiction). We conclude that the district court got it just right. We therefore affirm and remand for further proceedings.
Brooks v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Barry E. Brooks appeals from the final decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Specifically, Mr. Brooks appears to challenge the Court of Federal Claims’s determination that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to consider his claim of unlawful seizure of assets, and complains that it erred by failing to address his claims of defamation, libel, and slander. Because the Court of Federal Claims lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Mr. Brooks’s claims, we affirm.
Jenkins v. Department of Transportation (Nonprecedential)
Cara Jenkins appeals from the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“the Board”) affirming the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (“the Agency”) action removing her from her position as Chief of Staff with the Federal Aviation Administration’s (“FAA”) Office of Human Resources Management (“AHR”) in Washington, D.C.. Jenkins v. Dep’t of Transp., No. DC-0752-18-0428-I-1, 2019 WL 1516844 (Apr. 3, 2019) (“Initial Decision”). For the following reasons, we affirm.
Stubblefield v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)
Brett J. Stubblefield appeals from a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) affirming a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) denying service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”). Stubblefield v. Wilkie, No. 18-2797, 2019 WL 1511223 (Vet. App. Apr. 8, 2019). Before the Veterans Court, Stubblefield argued that the Board’s reliance on a November 2011 VA examination was erroneous because the examination was inadequate. Before us, Stubblefield argues that the regulations governing service connection for PTSD are invalid in light of our decision in Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Because Stubblefield did not present this argument to the Veterans Court, he has waived his right to raise it on appeal. We therefore affirm.
Blackbird Tech LLC v. Fitbit, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Blackbird Tech LLC, d/b/a Blackbird Technologies, owns U.S. Patent No. 6,434,212, which describes and claims a device that counts an individual’s steps and, based on the length and rate of those steps, provides the individual with information such as distance traveled and speed. Fitbit, Inc. and Wahoo Fitness LLC each sought an inter partes review of claims 2, 5, and 6 of the ’212 patent. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the Patent and Trademark Office instituted the requested reviews and consolidated the proceedings. The Board ultimately determined that Fitbit had proven claim 6 of the ’212 patent unpatentable for obviousness but had not proven claims 2 and 5 unpatentable. See FitBit, Inc. v. Blackbird Tech, LLC, No. IPR2017-02012, 2019 WL 1118863 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 2019). Blackbird appeals the Board’s ruling on claim 6. We affirm.