This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions, one affirming a district court’s motion to dismiss for improper venue and another dismissing a case for lack of jurisdiction. The court also issued two nonprecedential opinions, one affirming a decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and another affirming a decision by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for lack of jurisdiction. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Andra Group, LP v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC (Precedential)

Andra Group, LP appeals the district court’s grant in part of the Defendants’ motion to dismiss for improper venue. Because we find that venue is improper in the Eastern District of Texas as to the three dismissed defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), we affirm.

Mondis Technology Ltd. v. LG Electronics Inc. (Precedential)

LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics USA, Inc. seek interlocutory review of a decision of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denying LG certain relief with respect to the liability portion of this case. Because LG’s notice of appeal was not filed within thirty days of the date at which the liability issues became final except for an accounting, LG’s appeal is untimely. We dismiss the matter for lack of jurisdiction.

Blount v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)

The Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) dismissed petitioner Gladys S. Blount’s whistleblower retaliation appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Blount v. Dep’t of Def., No. DC-1221-19-0766-W-1, 2020 WL 1238058 (M.S.P.B. Mar. 11, 2020). She appeals. We affirm because we agree with the Board that none of the actions that Ms. Blount alleged are “personnel actions” under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(a)(2)(A).

Torrez v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)

Gilberto Torrez appeals the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which affirmed a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals that denied service connection for Mr. Torrez’s elbow, knee, and back injuries and reduced the rating for his right ankle disability. Because Mr. Torrez raises only factual challenges, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.