This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case and concerns a district court’s refusal to seal certain documents. Notably, Judge Mayer wrote an opinion dissenting from the majority’s decision to vacate and remand the case. The second comes in a government contract case. The court also issued three nonprecedential opinions in employment and veterans cases. Finally, the court released a precedential order transferring an employment case to the District of Maryland. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order.
Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Precedential)
Uniloc USA, Inc., and Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A. (collectively, “Uniloc”) appeal from a decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California refusing to seal certain documents in several related cases between Uniloc and Apple Inc. (“Apple”). See Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 508 F. Supp. 3d 550 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (“Decision”). For the reasons provided below, we vacate and remand.
MAYER, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
The district court adhered to our remand instructions when it carefully weighed the public’s right of access to court records against the interests of third-party patent licensees in shielding their licensing information from public view. The court’s decision to deny the motion by Uniloc USA, Inc., and Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A. (collectively, “Uniloc”) to seal information related to its licenses with third parties was a sound exercise of discretion given that the dates and dollar amounts of those licenses went “to the heart of the primary dispute” between Uniloc and Apple Inc., which was whether Uniloc had generated sufficient licensing revenue to provide it with standing to sue. Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 508 F. Supp. 3d 550, 555 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (“District Court Decision”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Uniloc’s third-party licensees, moreover, failed to demonstrate a compelling interest in keeping their licensing information confidential. See id. at 554. I therefore respectfully dissent.
Aspen Consulting, LLC v. Secretary of the Army (Precedential)
Aspen Consulting, LLC, (“Aspen”) appeals a final decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (the “Board”). The Board denied Aspen’s appeal, which sought compensation for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (the “government’s”) failure to deposit contractually owed payments in the account designated in the contract. We reverse the Board’s finding that the government did not breach the contract and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. On remand, the Board must determine whether the government has established an affirmative defense of payment.
Feiss v. United States (Nonprecedential)
In 2017, Robert E. Feiss brought the present action against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, alleging that the government denied him certain payments— incentive payments for primary care practitioners—to which he was entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 1395l(x). In May 2018, the Claims Court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding that § 1395l(x)(4) precluded judicial review of the government’s adverse determination concerning his qualification as a primary care practitioner. Feiss v. United States, 138 Fed. Cl. 237, 241 (2018). Dr. Feiss did not appeal that decision.
* * *
We lack jurisdiction to review the Claims Court’s May 2018 dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, because Dr. Feiss did not timely appeal that dismissal and because “an appeal from denial of Rule 60(b) relief does not bring up the underlying judgment for review.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 263 n.7 (1978); see also Barnes v. United States, 747 F. App’x 860, 861 (Fed. Cir. 2019). We have jurisdiction only to consider the Rule 60(b)(6) denial, which we evaluate for abuse of discretion. Progressive Indus., Inc. v. United States, 888 F.3d 1248, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2018). We see no abuse of discretion.
* * *
Hilaire v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Pro se Appellant Clifford Hilaire appeals a judgment by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims dismissing Hilaire’s action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. We affirm.
Randolph v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
Robert E. Randolph appeals from the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“the Veterans Court”) denying his petition for a writ of mandamus. Randolph v. Wilkie, No. 20-3333, 2020 WL 4280115 (Vet. App. July 27, 2020) (“Decision”); Randolph v. Wilkie, No. 20-3333, 2021 WL 41133 (Vet. App. Jan. 6, 2021); SAppx 2–7. For the reasons detailed below, we dismiss Randolph’s appeal as moot.
Ash v. Office of Personnel Management (Precedential Order)
On October 7, 2021, we directed the parties to show cause whether this case should be transferred to a United States district court as a mixed case under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A). In response, the Office of Personnel Management asserted that Julian R. Ash presented a mixed case and that we should transfer this case to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Because this case involves (1) an action that is appealable to the Merit Systems Protection Board and (2) a discrimination allegation, we conclude that it is a mixed case and therefore order the case transferred to the District of Maryland.