This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions in a patent and two veterans cases. Late yesterday and today the court also released three nonprecedential orders; two transfer appeals and one dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the orders.
Innovation Sciences, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Innovation Sciences (IS) appeals two orders from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The first order denied IS’ post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law or, alternatively, a new trial. The second order granted-in-part and denied-in-part Amazon’s motion for costs. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the first order and affirm-in-part and reverse-in-part the second order.
Davis v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
Brian Davis appeals an order from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) remanding to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) for additional evidentiary development and for the Board to interpret certain ratings criteria found in 38 C.F.R. § 4.114, Diagnostic Code (DC) 7346. Because the Veterans Court’s remand order was not a final decision, we dismiss.
Campbell v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Dexter E. Campbell appeals a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing-in-part his complaint for failure to state a claim and granting-in-part the United States’ motion for judgment on the administrative record. Because Mr. Campbell is not entitled to an increase in retirement pay or an increased Army disability rating, we affirm.
Conyers v. Department of Veterans Affairs (Nonprecedential Order)
Responding to the court’s May 27, 2022, order to show cause, the Department of Veterans Affairs urges dismissal or transfer. Vincent Curtis Conyers argues that this court has jurisdiction to hear his appeal but does not oppose transfer if we determine jurisdiction is lacking.
Mr. Conyers filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging the Department of Veterans Affairs violated the Privacy Act of 1974. The district court ultimately dismissed, and Mr. Conyers now appeals.
Our jurisdiction over final decisions of district courts is circumscribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1295. Under that statute, this court has jurisdiction only over district court cases arising under the patent laws, see § 1295(a)(1); civil actions on review to the district court from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, see § 1295(a)(4)(C); or certain damages claims against the United States “not exceeding $10,000 in amount,” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), see 28 U.S.C.§ 1295(a)(2). Mr. Conyers’s Privacy Act suit, filed in district court, falls outside of that limited jurisdiction. We must also reject Mr. Conyers’s argument that this court has jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. § 7292. Resp. at 3. That statute gives this court jurisdiction only over “a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.” Mr. Conyers is not seeking review of a decision of that court.
When this court lacks jurisdiction, we may transfer to another court, if it is in the interest of justice, where “the action or appeal could have been brought at the time it was filed.” 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Here, that court would be the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The appeal and all transmittals are transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Parmlee v. State of Connecticut Office of the Attorney General (Nonprecedential Order)
Richard T. Parmlee filed two complaints with the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against various agencies and individuals associated with the state of Connecticut, alleging various civil rights violations and other disputes stemming from an earlier settlement in a 1994 case involving discrimination claims. The district court consolidated the cases and ultimately dismissed the claims. Mr. Parmlee appealed to this court. On
May 27, 2022, this court directed the parties to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed or transferred. ECF No. 4. The parties thereafter filed their responses.
We do not have jurisdiction over Mr. Parmlee’s appeal. This court possesses jurisdiction over only certain appeals from federal district courts, including cases arising under the patent laws, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1295(a)(1), 1295(a)(4)(C), and certain cases against the United States for claims “not exceeding $10,000 in amount,” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), see 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(2). None of these apply to Mr. Parmlee’s appeal.
When this court lacks jurisdiction, it may, “if it is in the interest of justice, transfer such . . . appeal” to the appropriate court. 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Under the circumstances of this case, we deem it the better course to transfer to the regional circuit where the appeal could have been brought. Here, that is the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The appeal and all filings are transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
Document Security Systems, Inc. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co. (Nonprecedential Order)
Upon consideration of Document Security Systems, Inc.’s unopposed motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motion is granted to the extent that the appeal is withdrawn.
(2) The parties shall bear their own costs.