This morning, the Federal Circuit issued five nonprecedential opinions: two in patent cases, one in a veterans case, one in a government contract case, and one in a trademark case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
iLife Technologies, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
iLife Technologies, Inc., appeals a Northern District of Texas order holding that claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,864,796 is directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We affirm.
Boom! Payments, Inc. v. Stripe, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Boom! Payments, Inc. (“Boom”) appeals from a decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California holding that the claims of U.S. Patents 8,429,084 (“’084 patent”), 9,235,857 (“’857 patent”), and 10,346,840 (“’840 patent”) are ineligible for patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Boom! Payments, Inc. v. Stripe, Inc., No. 3:19-cv-00590-VC, 2019 WL 6605314 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2019) (“Decision”). Because we agree with the district court that the patents claim patent-ineligible subject matter, we affirm.
Duncan v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)
Veteran Gary B. Duncan appeals the denial of his mandamus petition by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”). Mr. Duncan had asked the Veterans Court to compel the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) to decide his benefits-overpayment claim. In support of mandamus, Mr. Duncan argued that the VA had unreasonably delayed in making its determination. The Veterans Court found no unreasonable delay and denied mandamus. During the pendency of this appeal from that denial, the relevant regional office (“RO”) of the VA decided part, but not all, of Mr. Duncan’s claim. Although the VA insists that this partial decision moots Mr. Duncan’s petition, we are not convinced. For the reasons discussed below, we vacate the Veterans Court’s order denying mandamus and remand to the Veterans Court for reconsideration of the mandamus petition in light of the RO’s partial determination.
Veteran Shredding, LLC v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Veteran Shredding, LLC appeals a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing its bid protest. Veteran Shredding contends that the Rule of Two, 38 U.S.C. § 8127(d), required the solicitation in question to have been set aside for competition among service-disabled veteran– owned small businesses (“SDVOSBs”).
The Rule of Two requires that competition be restricted to SDVOSBs when a contracting officer reasonably expects that two or more SDVOSBs will bid on the solicitation and that an award can be made at a fair and reasonable price. Because the contracting officer lacked such an expectation here, no set-aside was required. We affirm.
North 61 LLC v. Sjoklaedagerdin Hf. (Nonprecedential)
North 61 LLC (“North”) appeals from a judgment of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) sustaining an opposition and refusing its application to register the mark NORTH 61. Sjoklaedagerdin Hf. v. North 61 LLC, No. 91237366, 2020 WL 1166478 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2020) (“Decision”). The Board refused North’s application on the ground that its mark NORTH 61 would be confusingly similar to Sjoklaedagerdin Hf.’s (“Sjoklaedagerdin”) mark 66⁰NORTH. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.