This morning, the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential opinions, three nonprecedential orders, and a Rule 36 judgment. In the opinions, the court affirmed a judgment in a patent case appealed from the Northern District of California; affirmed a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction by the Court of Federal Claims; affirmed a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board; affirmed a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; and affirmed another judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Two of the nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals and one is an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals, Rule 36 judgment, and erratum.

People.ai, Inc. v. Clari Inc. (Nonprecedential)

People.ai, Inc. appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California’s grant of judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) in favor of Defendants, Clari Inc. and SetSail Technologies, Inc. People.ai, Inc. v. SetSail Techs., Inc., 575 F. Supp. 3d 1193 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (Decision). People.ai asserted a total of seven patents against Clari or SetSail. The district court held that the asserted claims of all seven patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. People.ai appeals as to three of the asserted patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 10,922,345, 10,565,229, and 10,657,129. We affirm.

Frazier v. United States (Nonprecedential)

Alphonso V. Frazier II appeals from the dismissal of his complaint by the Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”). Because the Claims Court properly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Frazier’s claims, we affirm.

Hammond v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)

Schwanda G. Hammond appeals two decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) dismissing her cases: first, a compliance case, and second, a whistleblower individual right of action. The Board dismissed both cases in light of a settlement agreement that resolved seven of Ms. Hammond’s pending cases. We consider both cases together in light of the global settlement agreement. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the Board’s dismissal.

Stanton v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)

Freeman W. Stanton, while on active duty in the Air Force in 1971, went absent without leave (AWOL), first for 7 days and again for 59 days. After his second AWOL period, Mr. Stanton received an “undesirable discharge.” In January 1972, he applied for a discharge upgrade, but the Air Force Discharge Review Board denied the request in March 1972. Mr. Stanton later filed with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) claims for compensation for “spine disabilities” and a “mental disability.” The relevant VA regional office denied his claims. So did the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. Mr. Stanton then appealed the Board decision to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court), which vacated the Board’s decision and remanded. On remand, the Board again denied Mr. Stanton’s claims; the Veterans Court then affirmed the Board’s decision. We now affirm.

McLaughlin v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)

Appellant Lori McLaughlin challenges a decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board dismissing her Individual Right of Action appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm because McLaughlin’s disclosures (1) describe, at most, trivial violations or minor miscues and (2) fall within an exception to the MSPB’s jurisdiction because the disclosures were part and parcel of McLaughlin’s exercise of her Title VII rights.


Rule 36 Judgments