This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a takings case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; the second comes in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Milton v. United States (Precedential)
Appellants Virginia Milton and hundreds of other individuals and companies owned property downstream from the Addicks and Barker Dams in Houston, Texas. They allege that the Army Corps of Engineers flooded their properties when it opened the dams’ floodgates during Hurricane Harvey. Now, they appeal from the decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims holding that they do not have a cognizable property interest in perfect flood control, and thus they cannot state takings claims against the United States. See In re Downstream Addicks & Barker (Tex.) Flood-Control Reservoirs, 147 Fed. Cl. 566 (2020). We hold that Appellants have alleged cognizable property interests in flowage easements, reverse the decision of the Court of Federal Claims, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
In re Taylor (Nonprecedential)
Lawnie H. Taylor appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision affirming the examiner’s rejection of claims 131–153 of United States Patent Application No. 14/971,878 (“the ’878 application”). Because we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s affirmance of the examiner’s rejection of all pending claims as anticipated by prior art, we affirm.
Podlucky v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Gregory Joseph Podlucky appeals a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because Mr. Podlucky’s claims fall outside the scope of the Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction, we affirm.