This morning the Federal Circuit issued six precedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Virginia. The second comes in a trademark case appealed from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The third and fourth come in employment cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The fifth and sixth come in Tucker Act and tax cases respectively appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. Finally, the court issues a nonprecedential opinion in a trademark case appealed from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Alarm.com Inc. v. Hirshfeld (Precedential)
In 2015, Alarm.com Incorporated filed petitions in the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO or Patent Office) seeking inter partes reviews (IPRs) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–19 of claims of three patents owned by Vivint, Inc. The IPRs were instituted, and the PTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board in 2017 issued three final written decisions, which rejected Alarm.com’s challenges to certain claims, a rejection that we affirmed on appeal in late 2018. In mid-2020, Alarm.com filed with the PTO three requests for ex parte reexamination of those very claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 301–07. The PTO’s Director, without deciding whether the requests presented a “substantial new question of patentability,” § 303(a), vacated the ex parte reexamination proceedings based on the estoppel provision of the IPR regime, § 315(e)(1), which, the Director concluded, estopped Alarm.com from pursuing the requests once the IPRs resulted in final written decisions.
Alarm.com sought review of the Director’s vacatur decisions in district court under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(2)(A), (C). The district court dismissed Alarm.com’s complaint on the ground that APA review of the Director’s decision was precluded by the ex parte reexamination scheme viewed as a whole. Alarm.com Inc. v. Hirshfeld, No. 1:21-cv-170, 2021 WL 2557948 (E.D. Va. June 22, 2021). On Alarm.com’s appeal, we reverse.
In re Elster (Precedential)
Steve Elster appeals a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”). The Board affirmed an examiner’s refusal to register the trademark “TRUMP TOO SMALL” for use on T-shirts. The Board’s decision was based on section 2(c) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(c), and the Board’s finding that the mark included the surname of a living individual, President Donald J. Trump, without his consent. Because we hold that applying section 2(c) to bar registration of Elster’s mark unconstitutionally restricts free speech in violation of the First Amendment, we reverse the Board’s decision.
Bryant v. Department of Veterans Affairs (Precedential)
In July 2020, petitioner Eric T. Bryant was removed from his position with the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) for conduct unbecoming a federal employee. In February 2021, the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) upheld Mr. Bryant’s removal. Because the Board’s decision as to the underlying disciplinary action rests on legal errors in view of our court’s recent decisions in Rodriguez v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 8 F.4th 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2021), and Connor v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 8 F.4th 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2021), we vacate that portion of the Board’s decision and remand. We affirm, however, the Board’s determination that Mr. Bryant failed to prove his affirmative defense of whistleblower reprisal.
Bannister v. Department of Veterans Affairs (Precedential)
In August 2020, petitioner Angelina Bannister was suspended from her position with the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) for conduct unbecoming a federal employee. In February 2021, the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) upheld Ms. Bannister’s suspension. Because the Board’s decision as to the underlying suspension rests on an incorrect statement of law in view of our court’s recent decision in Rodriguez v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 8 F.4th 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2021), we vacate that portion of the Board’s decision and remand. We affirm, however, the Board’s determination that Ms. Bannister’s affirmative defense of whistleblower reprisal failed.
Fletcher v. United States (Precedential)
Plaintiffs William Fletcher, Tara Damron, Richard Longsinger, and Kathryn Redcorn, individual holders of Osage headrights, filed suit against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) seeking damages resulting from breach of fiduciary duties relating to royalties from the Osage mineral estate. Fletcher v. United States, 151 Fed. Cl. 487 (2020) (Claims Court Decision). Because the Claims Court incorrectly concluded that the plaintiffs had no standing and had failed to identify a source of money-mandating obligation as required under the Tucker Act, we reverse the dismissal of the complaint. We also vacate the Claims Court’s decision on the availability of a damages accounting and the striking of declarations.
Ampersand Chowchilla Biomass v. United States (Precedential)
This is a tax case. Ampersand Chowchilla Biomass, LLC and Merced Power, LLC appeal a decision of the Court of Federal Claims denying their request for additional payments of Section 1603 grants under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Because we agree with the Court of Federal Claims that the relevant power facilities did not meet the requirements of the statute, we affirm.
United Trademark Holdings, Inc. v. Disney Enterprises, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
United Trademark Holdings, Inc. applied to the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) to register as trademarks TEEN TINKER BELL in standard characters and TEEN TINK in stylized characters with a crown above the letters. Disney Enterprises, Inc. (“Disney,” used here also to cover related entities) opposed the registrations on the ground that United’s marks were likely to cause confusion with several of Disney’s registered marks, including a mark for TINKER BELL in standard characters. The PTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board sustained Disney’s oppositions and refused to register United’s marks. Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. United Trademark Holdings, Inc., Opposition Nos. 91221648, 91224985, 2020 WL 3076003 (T.T.A.B. June 8, 2020) (Board Op.). We affirm.