This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Notably, Judge Newman dissented, disagreeing with the majority’s decision to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. The second comes in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. In this case, the Federal Circuit reverses the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal and remands the case. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Finally, the court issued two nonprecedential orders and two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the orders, and links to the Rule 36 judgments.
Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc. (Precedential)
On remand from this court, the Board terminated the proceeding due in part to its reconsideration of its decision on the time bar. Atlanta Gas appeals. We conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s decision to vacate its institution decision, a decision it made based in part on its evaluation of the time bar and changed Patent and Trademark Office policy. Accordingly, we dismiss Atlanta Gas’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
The PTAB’s sanctions order is not excluded from the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit, as the panel majority holds. Our appellate jurisdiction of PTAB decisions is set by statute; no exception excludes the appeal of a sanctions order. I respectfully dissent from the majority’s ruling that we do not have jurisdiction of this appeal.
SEKRI, Inc. v. United States (Precedential)
SEKRI, Inc. appeals a decision of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims dismissing its bid protest action. The Court of Federal Claims determined that SEKRI lacks standing because it does not qualify as an actual or prospective bidder and that SEKRI failed to state a claim because it waived its right to bring a bid protest action under Blue & Gold. We hold that, in view of the Javits-Wagner-O’Day Act and its implementing regulations, SEKRI qualifies as a prospective bidder for standing purposes and that SEKRI has not waived its right to bring its bid protest action under the Blue & Gold waiver standard. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Brady v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
Appellant Terry T. Brady served with the United States Marine Corps from 1953 to 1956. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“BVA” or “Board”) denied his claim of service connection for certain neuropathies that became manifest in 2006. The issue relates to Mr. Brady’s possible exposure to radiation and whether there is a presumption of service-connection on the facts hereof. The BVA found that service connection was not established, and the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“CAVC”) affirmed.1
The record on appeal contains differing medical opinions concerning whether Mr. Brady’s neuropathies relate to his military service. These medical opinions, and their balance and weight, are factual in nature, and entail no questions of law or relevant presumptions of service-connection. This court lacks authority to review such factual determinations unless constitutional questions are involved. We conclude that the appeal must be dismissed, for the issue is entirely factual, and not within our appellate jurisdiction.
Honse v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential Order)
Michelle C. Honse has not responded to this court’s April 26, 2022 order by filing a revised Federal Circuit Form 10 abandoning her discrimination claims.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
Pursuant to this court’s April 26, 2022 order, this case and all transmittals are transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division.
Electronic Scripting Products, Inc. v. HTC America, Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that:
(1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. P. 42 (b).
(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.