This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Massachusetts. In this opinion, the Federal Circuit affirms the district court’s preliminary injunction order. The second comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. In this opinion, the Federal Circuit affirms the Board’s removal of an employee of the Department of Defense. The Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential opinions. The first and second come in veterans cases appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the third comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Finally, the Federal Circuit released a Rule 36 judgment and two nonprecedential orders. One of these orders summarily affirms, and one dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the summary affirmance, and links to the dismissal and Rule 36 judgment.

SoClean, Inc. v. Sunset Healthcare Solutions, Inc. (Precedential)

Sunset Healthcare Solutions, Inc. (“Sunset”) appeals the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts’s order granting preliminary injunctive relief to SoClean, Inc. (“SoClean”) requiring “Sunset to clearly associate its online marketing and sales . . . with the Sunset brand.” SoClean, Inc. v. Sunset Healthcare Sols., Inc., 554 F. Supp. 3d 284, 308 (D. Mass. 2021). We affirm.

McIntosh v. Department of Defense (Precedential)

The Department of Defense removed Elfina McIntosh from her position. Ms. McIntosh alleged she was removed for protected whistleblowing activity. The Merit Systems Protection Board sustained the removal and concluded that the Department would have removed her even absent her protected whistleblowing activity. She now challenges the Board’s decision, arguing (1) that the Board’s administrative judges are improperly appointed principal officers under the Appointments Clause and (2) that substantial evidence does not support the Board’s decision on her removal. We affirm.

Rodriguez v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)

Jesus Rodriguez, Jr. appeals the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirming the decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals denying (1) a request to reopen a previously denied claim for service connection and (2) claims for service connection for various other conditions. Rodriguez v. McDonough, No. 21-0665, 2022 WL 557291 (Vet. App. Feb. 24, 2022). We affirm-in-part and dismiss-in-part.

Sanders v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)

Marvin E. Sanders appeals a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirming the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ denial of earlier effective dates for his disability benefits and determining that it lacks jurisdiction over Mr. Sanders’ claim of clear and unmistakable error. We affirm.

Moghadam v. Department of Veterans Affairs (Nonprecedential)

Nafiseh T. Moghadam appeals a Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) decision that denied her Whistleblower Protection Act claims. Based on the record before us, we affirm the decision of the Board.

On appeal, Ms. Moghadam asserts that “she is entitled under both the [Whistleblower Protection Act] and the [Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act] to request . . . attorney fees.” Reply Br. 6. We do not address this issue because it was not decided below and has not been properly raised before this court.

Hartman v. United States (Nonprecedential Order)

Dorothy M. Hartman submits a document challenging the court’s September 16, 2022, notice that her opening brief and appendix are not compliant with the court’s rules. The document further argues that she is “owed a Default Judgment by law.” ECF No. 15 at 2. Ms. Hartman has since moved to withdraw ECF No. 15, but continues to challenge the notice of non-compliance, ECF No. 17. We construe Ms. Hartman’s filings as a motion to accept her non-conforming opening brief and appendix. We accept Ms. Hartman’s non-conforming opening brief and appendix for filing and, after careful review of her submissions, conclude that summary affirmance is appropriate.

* * *



(1) Ms. Hartman’s opening brief and appendix, ECF No. 12, are accepted for filing.

(2) The Court of Federal Claims’ judgment dismissing Ms. Hartman’s claims is summarily affirmed.

(3) Any other pending motions are denied as moot.

(4) Each party shall bear its own costs.


Rule 36 Judgment