This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in government contract cases. Additionally, the court issued two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases. Finally, the court issued three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.
P.K. Management Group, Inc. v. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (Precedential)
P.K. Management Group, Inc. appeals a Civilian Board of Contract Appeals decision denying its claim that it should receive individual payments for inspections of Custodial properties under a contract with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Because we agree with the Board’s determination that the contract terms unambiguously cover routine inspections through a monthly fee rather than individual payments, we affirm.
NIKA Technologies, Inc. v. United States (Precedential)
Bid protests filed at the Government Accountability Office within five days of debriefing invoke an automatic stay of performance of the underlying contract under 31 U.S.C. § 3553(d). NIKA Technologies, Inc. filed a bid protest at the GAO six days after receiving a written debriefing regarding its failed bid on a government contract, but the GAO denied an automatic stay as untimely. NIKA filed an action at the Court of Federal Claims, which instituted the stay. The government appeals. Because we hold that the plain language of 31 U.S.C. § 3553(d) dictates that the deadline for invoking the automatic stay is five days after the written debriefing is supplied (unless, as discussed below, the protestor submits additional questions), we reverse.
Deere & Company v. Gramm (Nonprecedential)
Over a half century ago, the Supreme Court decided a patent case between one Graham and John Deere, Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), which established the factual inquiries that underly the legal question of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We now have an obviousness case between John Deere and another Gramm. John Deere is not so fortunate in the result this time.
In this case, Deere & Company (“Deere”) appeals from two final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) holding that claims 12–26 of U.S. Patent 6,202,395 (the “’395 patent”) are not unpatentable as obvious. See Deere & Co. v. Gramm, No. IPR2015-00898, 2019 WL 7000106 (P.T.A.B Dec. 20, 2019); Deere & Co. v. Gramm, No. IPR2015-00899, 2019 WL 7000102 (P.T.A.B Dec. 20, 2019). Because the Board did not commit legal error and substantial evidence supports the Board’s factual findings, we affirm.
vPersonalize Inc. v. Magnetize Consultants Ltd. (Nonprecedential)
Magnetize Consultants Ltd. (“Magnetize”) appeals the decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington denying Magnetize’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.