This morning the Federal Circuit issued three nonprecedential opinions: one in a veterans case, one in a tax case, and one in a patent case. Additionally, the court issued three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.
Jones v. Tran (Nonprecedential)
Phillip A. Jones appeals a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) denying his petition for a writ of mandamus. See Jones v. Wilkie, No. 19-5422, 2019 U.S. App. Vet. Claims LEXIS 1877 (Oct. 25, 2019) (“Veterans Court Decision”). For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.
Fujita v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Appellants Karen Kress Fujita and Gary Noboru Fujita (“Mrs. Fujita” and “Mr. Fujita”) separately filed complaints in the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) for damages resulting from allegedly improper tax collection actions by the government. The Claims Court dismissed their cases for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Gary Fujita v. United States, No. 19-1263T, 2020 WL 1487645, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 25, 2020); Karen Fujita v. United States, No. 19-1274T, 2020 WL 1487647, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 25, 2020). Given the substantial factual similarities between the two actions, we issue our ruling in a single opinion. For the reasons explained below, we affirm.
Apple Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC (Nonprecedential)
Apple Inc. (“Apple”) petitioned for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,243,723 (“the ’723 patent”), owned by Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. (“Uniloc”). The United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) held that claims 1 and 2 of the ’723 patent would have been obvious over the prior art but that Apple failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 3–8 would have been obvious. See Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., No. IPR2017-00222, 2018 WL 2355988 (P.T.A.B. May 23, 2018) (“Decision”). Apple appeals the Board’s holding that it failed to demonstrate unpatentability of claims 3–8, and Uniloc cross-appeals the Board’s holding that claims 1 and 2 would have been obvious. We affirm the Board’s decision in all respects.