This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The court also issued five nonprecedential opinions. Two came in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Two came in veterans cases appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The last came in a government contract case appealed from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
VAS Realty, LLC v. United States (Precedential)
VAS Realty, LLC appeals a decision by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims dismissing VAS’s bid protest for lack of standing on the ground that VAS failed to show it has a substantial chance of winning the lease at issue. If VAS’s protest proves successful, VAS would have an opportunity to participate in any new procurement. We have previously held that under such circumstances, a protester has a substantial chance of winning the award for standing purposes. This precedent applies in this case. We therefore hold that the Court of Federal Claims erred when it dismissed VAS’s protest for lack of standing. We reverse the Court of Federal Claims’ decision dismissing VAS’s protest for lack of standing and remand for further proceedings.
Zaxcom, Inc. v. Lectrosonics, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Lectrosonics, Inc. petitioned the Patent and Trademark Office to institute an inter partes review, under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–19, of all claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,336,307, which is owned by Zaxcom, Inc. After institution of the requested review, Zaxcom filed a motion to replace the original claims 1–14 with fourteen corresponding claims—substitute claims 15–28—if the Patent Trial and Appeal Board held the original claims unpatentable. The Board issued a final written decision holding all original claims unpatentable, and it therefore addressed Zaxcom’s proposed substitute claims, which it allowed to be added to the patent because Lectrosonics had not proved them unpatentable. Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., No. IPR2018-00972, 2019 WL 5849856, at *29 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 7, 2019). Zaxcom appeals the Board’s rejection of the original claims, and Lectrosonics appeals the Board’s approval of the substitute claims. We affirm both determinations.
Robinson v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
The Board of Veterans’ Appeals granted Robert E. Robinson disability benefits with an effective date of May 2, 1992. Mr. Robinson appealed the Board’s effective-date determination, and the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed. Mr. Robinson now appeals to us, arguing that the Veterans Court erred by incompletely applying the test for determining the law of the case and by applying the wrong standard of review in analyzing whether a document constitutes a decision. Because the Veterans Court articulated and applied the correct law-of-the-case test and because Mr. Robinson forfeited his standard-of-review argument, we affirm.
Zaxcom, Inc. v. Lectrosonics, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Lectrosonics, Inc. petitioned the Patent and Trademark Office to institute two inter partes reviews, under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–19, of claims of two patents owned by Zaxcom, Inc.—claims 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 7,929,902, and claims 1–4, 9, 10, 12, 15, 31, 36, 37, and 41– 45 of U.S. Patent No. 8,385,814. After institution of the requested reviews, Zaxcom filed, in each proceeding, a motion to replace the challenged original claims with corresponding substitute claims if the Patent Trial and Appeal Board held the challenged original claims unpatentable. The Board issued two final written decisions holding all challenged claims unpatentable, and it therefore addressed Zaxcom’s proposed substitute claims, which it allowed to be added to the patents because Lectrosonics had not proved them unpatentable. Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., No. IPR2018-01129, 2020 WL 407145, at *31 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2020); Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., No. IPR2018- 01130, 2020 WL 407146, at *27–28 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2020). Zaxcom appeals the Board’s rejection of the original claims, and Lectrosonics appeals the Board’s upholding of the substitute claims. We affirm the determinations in both IPRs.
Ratliff v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
Henry Ratliff appeals a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Veterans Court affirmed a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, denying Mr. Ratliff’s claims for disability compensation due to tinnitus. On appeal, Mr. Ratliff argues that the Veterans Court misapplied its own precedent regarding credibility determinations and erred in making its harmless error determination. Because Mr. Ratliff’s arguments both involve an application of law to fact, they are beyond our jurisdiction to consider. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2); King v. Shinseki, 700 F.3d 1339, 1345–46 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED
Lebolo-Watts Constructors v. Secretary of the Army (Nonprecedential)
In this appeal, Lebolo-Watts Constructors 01 JV, LLC, (“Lebolo”) seeks compensation for costs associated with the performance of a contract to construct a satellite communications operations center at Fort Meade, Maryland. The appeal includes a claim by Lebolo on its own behalf and pass-through claims that Lebolo submitted on behalf of two of its subcontractors, Worch Electric Inc. (“Worch”) and Warner Mechanical Corporation (“Warner”). The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals denied compensation as to all three claims, and this appeal followed. We affirm.