This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a Tucker Act case, a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and a nonprecedential order dismissing a petition for a writ of mandamus related to two district court cases involving contract disputes. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.

Sandwich Isles Communications, Inc. v. United States (Precedential)

Sandwich Isles Communications, Inc. (“SIC”) appeals the decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) granting the United States’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Sandwich Isles Commc’ns, Inc. v. United States, 145 Fed. Cl. 566 (2019) (“Decision on Appeal”). Because we agree with the Claims Court that its Tucker Act jurisdiction over SIC’s takings claim is displaced by the comprehensive scheme for review set forth in the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 402(a), we affirm.

McCoy v. HEAL Systems, LLC (Nonprecedential)

James N. McCoy appeals a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review brought by HEAL Systems, LLC. Appellant argues that the Board erred in the way it defined a person of ordinary skill in the art and that substantial evidence does not support the Board’s findings as to patentability and what is known in the art. Because we determine that the Board’s definition of a person of ordinary skill was not erroneous, and because substantial evidence supports the Board’s remaining findings, we affirm.

In re Sgromo (Nonprecedential Order)

Pietro Pasquale Antonio Sgromo petitions this court for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to grant Mr. Sgromo relief in two separate cases. Mr. Sgromo also moves to proceed in forma pauperis.

* * *

Federal courts “may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). In general, three conditions must be satisfied for a writ to issue: (1) the petitioner must demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to issuance of the writ; (2) the petitioner must have no other adequate method of attaining the desired relief; and (3) the court must be satisfied that the “writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004).

Issuing a writ of mandamus in either case would not be necessary or appropriate in aid of our jurisdiction because these contract-related disputes do not fall within this court’s limited jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1295. In fact, Mr. Sgromo has previously filed appeals in these cases to the Ninth Circuit, including the very orders in the Bestway case that he now wants this court to consider. We do not have authority to overturn the Ninth Circuit. Nor can Mr. Sgromo use a writ of mandamus to circumvent the fact that he failed to timely appeal the Eureka order.



(1) The petition is dismissed.

(2) The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as moot.