This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case and four nonprecedential opinions in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, a case concerning jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, a veterans case, and a patent case. The Federal Circuit also issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

AntennaSys, Inc. v. AQYR Technologies, Inc. (Precedential)

There is little more frustrating for a district court judge than to have the parties jointly lead you down a wrong, and possibly unnecessary, path. That is what occurred here. Unfortunately, many threshold issues that may have obviated the need for either claim construction or an infringement verdict remain unresolved. At first blush, this is a patent infringement case, with the only dispute before us concerning the district court’s construction of one claim term in United States Patent No. 7,432,868 (“the ’868 patent”). But it is equally likely that Plaintiff’s sole federal question count (patent infringement) is predicated on an impermissible theory of liability and that the district court had no jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Recognizing that we do not have the benefit of a complete factual record on some of the underlying questions, we vacate and remand.

Messam v. National Archives & Records Administration (Nonprecedential)

Winsome Messam seeks review of a Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) decision sustaining her removal from the National Archives and Records Administration (“NARA”). We affirm.

Mooney v. United States (Nonprecedential)

William Mooney and his wife, Joni Mooney (“the Mooneys”), appeal from a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims (the “Claims Court”) dismissing their complaint against the United States for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Mooney v. United States, No. 19- 987C, 2019 WL 4052488 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 27, 2019) (“Decision I”), and denying their motion for reconsideration. Mooney v. United States, No. 19-987C, 2019 WL 4861104 (Fed. Cl. Oct. 2, 2019) (“Decision II”). Because the Claims Court did not err in its dismissal and subsequent denial of reconsideration, we affirm.

Keel v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)

David Keel appeals the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) that dismissed in part and vacated and remanded in part an appeal from the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”). We affirm the Veterans Court’s dismissal of the appeal from the Board’s remand decision. We dismiss Mr. Keel’s appeal of the Veterans Court’s order vacating and remanding for lack of jurisdiction.

Route1 Inc. v. AirWatch LLC (Nonprecedential)

Route1 Inc. (“Route1”) appeals the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware’s order granting summary judgment of noninfringement to AirWatch LLC and VMware, Inc. (collectively, “AirWatch”). We affirm the district court’s thorough opinion.

Rule 36 Judgments