This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, a nonprecedential opinion, and two nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinions come in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims and a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a pro se case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The nonprecedential orders dismiss petitions for writs of mandamus, one seeking to order transfer in a patent case and the other in an apparent pro se case pending at the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Harmonia Holdings Group, LLC v. United States (Precedential)

Harmonia Holdings Group, LLC appeals a decision by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims granting the defendants United States and Dev Technology Group, Inc.’s Cross-Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record. Harmonia contends that the Court of Federal Claims erred in determining that Harmonia waived its right to assert before the court the same challenges that it asserted in its pre-award protest to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. We agree and reverse the Court of Federal Claims’ decision on waiver; vacate the Court of Federal Claims’ decision that Customs and Border Protection did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner in evaluating Harmonia’s proposal and in making an award decision; and remand for the Court of Federal Claims to determine in the first instance the merits of Harmonia’s pre-award protest to Customs and Border Patrol and what relief, if any, Harmonia is entitled to based on its pre-award protest. Because the Court of Federal Claims could determine on remand that Harmonia is entitled to submit a wholly revised proposal requiring a new technical evaluation by Customs and Border Protection, we decline, on mootness grounds, to reach the merits of the Court of Federal Claims’ decision with respect to Customs and Border Protection’s technical evaluation of Harmonia’s proposal submitted on November 13, 2018.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Corcept Therapeutics, Inc. (Precedential)

In a final-written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board held that Teva Pharmaceuticals USA had failed to show claims 1–13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,195,214 would have been obvious. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Corcept Therapeutics, Inc., PGR2019-00048, 2020 WL 6809812 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 18, 2020) (Final Decision). Teva appeals, arguing the Board misapplied our obviousness law. For the following reasons, we affirm.

Tanasescu v. United States (Nonprecedential)

Simona Tanasescu appeals from a decision of the Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) dismissing her breach of contract claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Tanasescu v. United States, No. 21-1289 C, 2021 WL 2010295 (Fed. Cl. May 19, 2021). Because the Claims Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate claims asking the Claims Court to review the decisions of other federal courts, we affirm.

In re Overhead Door Corp. (Nonprecedential Order)

Overhead Door Corporation and GMI Holdings, Inc. (collectively, “OHD”) petition for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to transfer this patent infringement case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The Chamberlain Group LLC opposes. Because the district court did not clearly abuse its discretion in denying transfer, we deny the petition.

In re Raghubir (Nonprecedential Order)

Vinodh Raghubir petitions this court for writ of mandamus. The United States moves for summary dismissal. Mr. Raghubir moves to strike the United States’ motion and also moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

* * *

Mr. Raghubir’s petition argues that the Court of Federal Claims’ September 20, 2021 order “violat[ed] federal law and rules of procedure,” which “resulted in vindictive proceedings.” Pet. at 2 (capitalization omitted). But he has not met the high standard for mandamus relief because, among other things, he has not shown a “clear and indisputable,” right to having his submission, filed almost a year after his case was over, considered by the trial court. Will v. Calvert Fire Ins., 437 U.S. 655, 665–66 (1978) (internal quotation marks omitted).