This morning the Federal Circuit issued three nonprecedential opinions. The first opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial Appeal Board, while the second and third opinions come in employment cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Finally, the court released three Rule 36 judgments and one erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments and erratum.

In re Gamble (Nonprecedential)

Appellant Oliver Wendel Gamble appeals the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) affirmance of a final rejection of independent claim 1 of U.S. Patent Application No. 14/541,132 (“the ’132 application”) as anticipated. See S.A. 2–19 (Decision on Appeal). Mr. Gamble appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). We affirm.

Aubart v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)

Kevin Aubart filed an Individual Right of Action (IRA) appeal with the Merit Systems Protection Board, alleging that his employer, the U.S. Department of the Army, engaged in prohibited retaliation for his whistleblowing. Specifically, he asserted that the Army created a hostile work environment and proposed to remove him in retaliation for disclosing that three Army employees made materially false statements in various official proceedings. The Board dismissed the challenge, concluding that Mr. Aubart failed to nonfrivolously allege a disclosure protected under the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA). Supplemental Appendix (SAppx) 1–20; see also Aubart v. Dep’t of the Army, No. SF-1221-20-0520-W-1, 2020 WL 6269161 (M.S.P.B. Oct. 23, 2020). Mr. Aubart appeals. We affirm.

Thompson v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)

Gary Paul Thompson appeals a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board dismissing his case for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.

* * *

Mr. Thompson then filed a claim against his employing agency, the Navy, on October 8, 2020, alleging that his disability retirement was involuntary because OPM had misrepresented his retirement benefits. In response, the Navy pointed out that Mr. Thompson “placed responsibility for his involuntary retirement on misinformation, not from his employing agency, [the Navy,] but from the OPM.” S.A. 9. The Board dismissed Mr. Thompson’s appeal, determining that the record was devoid of any evidence that the retirement was the product of (1) misinformation or deception by the Navy or (2) coercion by the Navy. S.A. 9–10 (citing Terban v. Dep’t of Energy, 216 F.3d 1021, 1024 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). The Board concluded that “without a nonfrivolous allegation that a Navy agency official gave [Mr. Thompson] misinformation, [Mr. Thompson] cannot . . . show that his retirement was involuntary.” S.A. 10.

Rule 36 Judgments