Today the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders. One grants a motion to dismiss an appeal for lack of jurisdiction; one denies a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc; and one grants a motion to dismiss an appeal. Here is text from the first two orders and a link to the third order.

Bexar County v. Martin (Nonprecedential Order)

Appellees move to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Rowland J. Martin, Jr. opposes the motion.

This appeal stems from a 2014 Texas state court action filed by state tax authorities against Mr. Martin regarding a dispute over real property in Bexar County, Texas. In

April 2022, Mr. Martin removed the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The district court granted appellees’ motion to remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, denied Mr. Martin’s motion for reconsideration, and remanded the case to state court. This appeal followed.

We lack jurisdiction over this appeal. This court generally has jurisdiction only over district court cases arising under the patent laws, see 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1); civil actions on review to the district court from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, § 1295(a)(4)(C); or 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). Although Mr. Martin’s notice of appeal references § 1346, that provision is not applicable here because the United States is not a party to this action. Nor can jurisdiction on this matter be predicated on the “Big Tucker Act,” ECF No. 1-2, because that provision applies only to claims presented to the United States Court of Federal Claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). Finally, to the extent that Mr. Martin’s response argues that this court has jurisdiction in this case based on its jurisdiction over his separate appeal from a judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims, we must reject that argument.

When we lack jurisdiction, we will transfer the case to another court where the case “could have been brought at the time it was filed,” “if it is in the interest of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Here, however, Mr. Martin already filed an appeal with the appropriate regional circuit, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Appeal No. 22-50718.

Hitachi Energy USA Inc. v. United States (Nonprecedential Order)

Appellee Hitachi Energy USA Inc. filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. Responses were invited by the court and filed by Appellee the United States and Appellants Hyundai Corporation, USA and Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.

Upon consideration thereof,


The petition for panel rehearing is denied. However, the previous precedential opinion issued May 24, 2022, is modified as follows:

On page 16, line 12, after “unqualified” insert “in the circumstances of this case.”