This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a tax case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims; the second comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Virginia; and the third comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Federal Circuit also released a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and link to the Rule 36 judgment.

Forrest v. United States  (Nonprecedential)

Pro se Appellants Thomas and Jamie Forrest appeal the United States Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of their lawsuit seeking refunds for taxes paid for the 1997 tax year. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed their case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because it determined that the Forrests failed to file a timely tax refund claim with the Internal Revenue Service for the 1997 tax year. We affirm.

Correll v. Vidal (Nonprecedential)

Kevin Correll appeals an order of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denying his request to preliminarily enjoin his suspension from practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

Pritchard v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)

Christopher Pritchard appeals a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) dismissing his appeal as untimely filed. See Pritchard v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., No. AT-844E-20-0551-I-1, 2020 MSPB LEXIS 3894 (M.S.P.B. Sep. 25, 2020) (Board Decision). Because substantial evidence supports the findings underlying the Board’s decision that Mr. Pritchard’s appeal was untimely, and good cause has not been shown for the delay, we affirm.

Rule 36 Judgment