This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a tax case involving a penalty levied due to alleged noncompliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case affirming a district court’s award of attorney’s fees and double costs. The Federal Circuit also issued a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions of the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

Kimble v. United States (Precedential)

This case stems from Alice Kimble’s failure to comply with the requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act with respect to her Swiss bank account. After paying a penalty assessed by the IRS, Ms. Kimble brought a claim against the United States for refund of the penalty in the Court of Federal Claims on March 24, 2017. On December 27, 2018, the Court of Federal Claims granted the government’s motion for summary judgment. Ms. Kimble timely appealed. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

Pirri v. Cheek (Nonprecedential)

Alfred Pirri, Jr., appeals a decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York awarding Defendants Lori Cheek and Cheek’d, Inc., (collectively, Defendants) attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and holding Mr. Pirri’s counsel, Steven R. Fairchild, liable for those fees. Pirri v. Cheek, No. 1:19-cv-180, 2020 WL 2520593 (S.D.N.Y. May 18, 2020) (District Court Op.). Defendants move for appellate attorneys’ fees and double costs under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38. For the following reasons, we affirm and grant Defendants’ motion.

Rule 36 Judgment