This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims and addresses issues related to the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims and the Federal Circuit. The second comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of New York and addresses issues related to eligible subject matter. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Peretz v. United States (Nonprecedential)

In 2000, Meir Peretz bought stock in Microsoft and Intel worth about $1.8 million. In 2005, after he sold much of that stock (at a loss), his brokerage firm, which executed the sale, withheld from him some of the proceeds and paid the withheld money to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Mr. Peretz applied to the IRS for a refund of those amounts, alleging that he did not owe a tax on the sale because the shares were sold at a loss. But the IRS denied the refund.

Mr. Peretz then filed the present action in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court), seeking both a refund and damages for alleged IRS misconduct. The court entered judgment dismissing the action on June 1, 2020, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Peretz v. United States, 148 Fed. Cl. 586, 613 (2020); Appx. 36. Then, 29 days after the entry of final judgment, Mr. Peretz filed a motion for reconsideration and a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The Claims Court denied both motions in December 2020. Peretz v. United States, 151 Fed. Cl. 465, 477 (2020). Mr. Peretz now appeals.

We dismiss in part and affirm in part. We hold that we lack jurisdiction over the appeal of the June 2020 final judgment (and interlocutory rulings that merged into it) because Mr. Peretz did not file a timely notice of appeal from that judgment, and we therefore dismiss his appeal of that judgment. We hold that we have jurisdiction over the appeal of the December 2020 order denying the post-judgment motions, but we affirm that order because, we conclude, the Claims Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions.

Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp (Nonprecedential)

These two patent cases involve David Tropp’s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,021,537 and 7,036,728. The district court granted summary judgment against Mr. Tropp on the ground that all the at-issue claims of those patents—of which the parties agree claim 1 of the ’537 patent is representative—are invalid because they claim ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp, 527 F. Supp. 3d 256, 259 (E.D.N.Y. 2021). Mr. Tropp appeals. We affirm.