This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in an alleged government contract case and a nonprecedential information in a patent case. The court also issued three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Meidinger v. United States (Precedential)

Roy J. Meidinger filed suit in the United States Court of Federal Claims, seeking damages for breach of an asserted contract with the United States based on his submission of whistleblower information to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in accordance with 26 U.S.C. § 7623. He states that “the submission of the whistleblower claim [identifying tax evaders] is the formation of a contract” and “the IRS breached its contractual duties and responsibilities to collect the taxes [and] do any investigations.” Meidinger Compl., S.Appx. 12. He seeks damages for breach of contract.

The Court of Federal Claims held that the submission of whistleblower information did not create a contract with the IRS, and dismissed the complaint. We affirm the dismissal.

ENCO Systems, Inc. v. DaVincia, LLC (Nonprecedential)

ENCO Systems, Inc. owns U.S. Patent No. 7,047,191, titled “Method and System for Providing Automated Captioning for AV Signals.” ENCO sued DaVincia, LLC in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, alleging that DaVincia infringed the ’191 patent. The district court held that the ’191 patent claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. ENCO Systems, Inc. v. DaVincia, LLC, 447 F. Supp. 3d 916 (E.D. Mo. 2020). We affirm.

Rule 36 Judgments