This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, two nonprecedential opinions in pro se patent cases, and a nonprecedential opinion in a taking cases. The court also issued an erratum and a Rule 36 summary affirmance. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the erratum and summary affirmance.
Tao v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
Dr. Debra Tao petitions for review of a decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) that dismissed an individual right of action appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On review, the Board and the Office of Special Counsel agree that the administrative judge (“AJ”) erred in multiple respects. We reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand.
Mankaruse v. Raytheon Company (Nonprecedential)
Nagui Mankaruse, proceeding pro se, brought this action in district court against Raytheon Company, ThalesRaytheon Systems (TRS) LLC, and a host of Raytheon employees in their personal capacity (collectively, Raytheon), alleging patent infringement and trade-secret misappropriation. Having fought similar, and in large part the same, claims by Mr. Mankaruse in California state courts during the previous six years, Raytheon asked the district court in this case for, and received, an order deeming Mr. Mankaruse a vexatious litigant, requiring him to seek court permission before filing further cases against it, and also requiring him to post a $25,000 security bond before proceeding with the present case. See Mankaruse v. Raytheon Co., No. 8:19-cv-01904-DOC, 2020 WL 2405258, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2020) (Pre-Filing Order). Mr. Mankaruse failed to post the required bond, and the district court then dismissed this case. We affirm.
Mankaruse v. Intel Corp. (Nonprecedential)
Nagui Mankaruse, proceeding pro se, brought this action in district court against Intel Corporation, Acer America Corporation, and a host of Intel employees in their personal capacity (collectively, Intel), alleging patent infringement and trade-secret misappropriation. Having defended against similar, and in large part the same, claims by Mr. Mankaruse in California state courts three times before, Intel asked the district court for, and received, an order deeming Mr. Mankaruse a vexatious litigant, requiring him to seek court permission before filing further cases against it, and also requiring him to post a $25,000 security bond before proceeding with the present case. See Order, Mankaruse v. Intel Corp., No. 8:19-cv-01902-DOC (C.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2020), ECF No. 34; Intel Appx. 1–2. Mr. Mankaruse failed to post the required bond, and the district court dismissed this case. We affirm.
Bench Creek Ranch, LLC v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Paul Plouviez owns Bench Creek Ranch, LLC, which operates a ranch in Washoe County, Nevada. Mr. Plouviez and Bench Creek Ranch (collectively, Bench Creek) brought the present action against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court). Bench Creek alleged in its complaint that, after a wildfire in July 2017, hundreds of wild horses on federal lands—owned by the United States and managed by the Bureau of Land Management—drank water that belonged to Bench Creek under a permit the Bureau issued to Bench Creek for grazing livestock on the lands at issue. Bench Creek alleged that the Bureau’s failure to manage the wild horses resulted in a taking of its property without just compensation, in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Claims Court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.