Opinions
on

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion, three nonprecedential opinions, four nonprecedential orders, and a Rule 36 judgment. In the precedential opinion, the court vacated and remanded a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. In the first nonprecedential opinion, the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In the second nonprecedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. And in the third nonprecedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision appealed from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also issued four nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals and Rule 36 judgment.

Roman v. United States (Precedential)

This is a tax refund case. Pro se Plaintiff-Appellee Juan Roman sued the government in the United States Court of Federal Claims alleging, among other things, that he was entitled to a refund on taxes that he paid but that were assessed against his ex-wife. Before the government filed its Answer, the Court of Federal Claims denied the government’s motion to dismiss Mr. Roman’s third-party refund claim, granted the government’s motion to dismiss Mr. Roman’s other claims, and entered judgment in the amount of $50,002.04 in Mr. Roman’s favor. For the reasons provided below, we vacate the trial court’s judgment as it pertains to Mr. Roman’s third-party refund claim and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Garcia v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)

Henry M. Garcia appeals a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) rejecting his motion for en banc review as untimely. For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss the appeal.

Driessen v. Best Buy Company, Inc. (Nonprecedential)

James Driessen appeals a Final Written Decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) in an inter partes review proceeding involving U.S. Patent No. 10,304,052 (’052 patent). The Board determined that
claims 1–20 of the ’052 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Because Mr. Driessen forfeited the claim construction arguments he now raises on appeal and does not challenge the Board’s unpatentability determination independent of his forfeited arguments, we affirm.

In re Oxiteno S.A. Industria e Comercio (Nonprecedential)

Appellant Oxiteno S.A. Indústria e Comércio (“Oxiteno”) appeals a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) affirming the Examining Attorney’s refusal to register the mark OXIPURITY for various chemical products. We affirm.

Dismissals

Rule 36 Judgments