This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions, both affirming lower court decisions finding a lack of jurisdiction, one by the Court of Federal Claims and one by the Court of International Trade. Additionally, the Federal Circuit issued five nonprecedential opinions, one in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, three in patent cases appealed from district courts, and one in a veteran case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Straw v. United States (Precedential)

Andrew U.D. Straw appeals from a judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“the Claims Court”) dismissing his complaint for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.

TR International Trading v. United States (Precedential)

After duties were assessed on its import of citric acid, Appellant TR International Trading Company, Inc. filed suit in the Court of International Trade, asserting jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i). Because § 1581(i) is a residual grant of jurisdiction and because TRI had other adequate avenues for its claims, we affirm the Court of International Trade’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

Craft v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)

Ms. Bettey Sue Craft appeals from a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) dismissing her whistleblower individual right of action appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Because Ms. Craft alleges retaliation for potential whistleblowing activity—a claim over which the Board has jurisdiction—we vacate the decision and remand for further proceedings.

Flash-Control, LLC v. Intel Corp. (Nonprecedential)

Flash-Control, LLC, appeals from the Western District of Texas’s final judgment granting Intel Corporation’s motion for summary judgment and holding that the asserted patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 8,531,880 and 8,817,537, were invalid for lack of written description. Because we agree that there was no triable issue of fact as to whether the ’880 and ’537 patents’ shared written description adequately supported the patent claims, we affirm.

Nite Glow Industries Inc. v. Central Garden & Pet Company (Nonprecedential)

Central Garden & Pet Company (“Central”) and Four Paws Pet Company, d/b/a Four Paws Products, Ltd. (“Four Paws,” and collectively, “defendants”) appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey awarding damages to Nite Glow Industries, Inc. (“Nite Glow”), I Did It, Inc., and Marni Markell Hurwitz (collectively, “plaintiffs”) for misappropriation of idea, a common law tort under New Jersey law. Judgment was also entered in favor of plaintiffs for their breach of contract claim against defendants, but the district court did not award additional damages to plaintiffs and denied plaintiffs injunctive relief on that claim. The judgment also determined that defendants had not infringed claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,057,445 (“the ’445 patent”).

* * *

We affirm the district court’s denial of defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law on the misappropriation of idea claim, but we reverse the district court’s denial of defendants’ motion for a new trial on misappropriation damages and vacate and remand for a new trial on headstart damages for misappropriation. We affirm the district court’s denial of plaintiffs’ request for specific performance. We also affirm the district court’s grant of defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law of non-infringement.

Sensormatic Electronics, LLC v. WYZE Labs, Inc. (Nonprecedential)

Sensormatic Electronics, LLC (“Sensormatic”) appeals from a decision of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware holding that the claims of U.S. Patents 7,730,534 (“’534 patent”); 7,936,370 (“’370 patent”); 7,954,129 (“’129 patent”); 8,208,019 (“’019 patent”); and 8,610,772 (“’772 patent”) are ineligible for patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Sensormatic Elecs., LLC v. Wyze Labs, Inc., 484 F. Supp. 3d 161 (D. Del. 2020) (“Decision”). Because we agree that the patents claim patent-ineligible subject matter, we affirm.

Sampson v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)

Francis J. Sampson, Jr. served honorably in the United States Army from August 1967 to June 1969. On August 31, 2000, Mr. Sampson filed a claim for benefits for service- related post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Mr. Sampson’s claim made no mention of sleep apnea, though it contained evidence that he had difficulty sleeping. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) subsequently granted benefits for PTSD with an effective date of August 31, 2000. Fourteen years later, after repeatedly challenging the rating of his PTSD claim, Mr. Sampson sought benefits for sleep apnea as connected to his service-related PTSD. The VA then granted Mr. Sampson sleep apnea-related benefits with an effective date of March 31, 2013.

* * *

Mr. Sampson does not challenge the validity of any statute or regulation or any interpretation thereof. Nor does Mr. Sampson contend his challenge presents a constitutional issue. Rather, Mr. Sampson broadly challenges the Veterans Court’s determination that his original application failed to constitute an informal claim for sleep apnea benefits related to his service-related PTSD. To the extent Mr. Sampson’s appeal rests on a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of his case, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Ellington v. Peake, 541 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2008). To the extent his appeal contends that the Veterans Court did not apply the correct legal requirements for determining whether Mr. Sampson had filed an informal claim in 2000 for sleep apnea, we detect no legal error.