Today, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, one in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims and one in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also released four nonprecedential opinions in cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, an arbitrator, and the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders, two summary affirmances, and one dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances and dismissal.

Obsidian Solutions Group, LLC v. United States (Precedential)

Obsidian Solutions Group, LLC appeals a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims granting judgment on the administrative record. The court held that the Office of Hearings and Appeals did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in determining Obsidian was not a small business. We affirm.

Google LLC v. Hammond Development International, Inc. (Precedential)

Google LLC (Google) appeals from an inter partes review final written decision in which the Patent Trial and Appeal Board held that Google failed to prove claims 14–19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,270,816 would have been obvious. For the following reasons, we reverse in part and affirm in part.

Oram v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)

Cyril David Daniel Oram, Jr. seeks review of the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) denying his request for corrective action under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 (“VEOA”). Oram v. Dep’t of the Air Force, Docket No. DC-3330-22- 0003-I-1 (M.S.P.B. Jan. 10, 2022) (Board Decision). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the Board’s final decision.

Jordan v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)

Former United States Postal Service (“USPS”) employee Ronald M. Jordan Jr. filed an appeal to the United States Merit Systems Protection Board (“the Board”) from an arbitrator’s decision that denied his grievance challenging his removal from his position by the USPS. The Board found that it lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Jordan’s appeal. Jordan v. U.S. Postal Serv., MSPB Docket No. CB-7121-22- 0005-V-1, Final Order (Apr. 15, 2022); Appx. 1–7. Mr. Jordan then petitioned this court for review. We conclude that the petition for review was untimely filed and dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

Parrish v. Department of Health and Human Services (Nonprecedential)

Donna D. Parrish, Ph.D., appeals from an arbitration decision affirming her removal from federal service for unacceptable performance. Because substantial evidence supports the arbitrator’s decision, we affirm.

El Malik v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)

Rashid El Malik appeals an order of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) denying his petition for a writ of mandamus. Mr. El Malik’s petition, based on a claim of unreasonable delay, sought to expedite a decision from the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) on his remanded home-adaptation claims. Because Mr. El Malik’s appeal is moot, at least in part, and otherwise challenges an ordinary application of the TRAC factors to the facts of this case, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

In re Nimitz Technologies LLC (Nonprecedential Order)

Nimitz Technologies LLC (“Nimitz”) petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the District of Delaware to vacate its November 10, 2022, order directing Nimitz to turn over certain documents for the district court’s inspection and to order an end to “the district court’s judicial investigation of” Nimitz. Pet. at 27. We deny the petition.

Wickramaratna v. United States (Nonprecedential Order)

J. Wickramaratna filed a complaint at the United States Court of Federal Claims for $10 billion, primarily alleging that a host of federal officials and employees, including members of Congress and employees of the Departments of State, Defense, and Justice, are involved in a conspiracy to obstruct her alleged relationship with President Trump. She asserted tort violations, civil rights violations, and a breach of contract, as well as a laundry list of criminal acts. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed her breach-of-contract claim because Ms. Wickramaratna failed to allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for relief and dismissed Ms. Wickramaratna’s remaining claims for lack of jurisdiction or as frivolous. She appeals and now moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. She has also filed her opening brief, ECF Nos. 12 and 14.

Because the trial court’s dismissal of Ms. Wickramaratna’s complaint was so “clearly correct” and “no substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal exists,” we summarily affirm.

Rule 36 Judgments