This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, one in a government contract case and one in a tax case. The court also released three nonprecedential opinions, all in patent cases. The court also released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

Caci, Inc. v. United States (Precedential)

Appellant CACI, Inc. (“CACI”) appeals the Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) dismissal of its bid protest. The Claims Court held that CACI lacked standing but nonetheless alternatively concluded that CACI’s bid suffered a fatal technical deficiency. We hold that the Claims Court erred in treating the statutory standing issue as jurisdictional. We affirm on the merits.

Dixon v. United States (Precedential)

Alan C. Dixon seeks a refund of taxes he paid to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). In 2017, his tax preparer filed amended tax returns for him, within the time permitted by law, claiming a refund of amounts paid for tax years 2013 and 2014, but, after an audit, the IRS denied the refund claims and instead assessed additional taxes. Mr. Dixon then filed an action in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court), and during that litigation, it became clear that Mr. Dixon had not personally written the signatures of his name on the 2017 amended returns—the tax preparer had signed Mr. Dixon’s name—and no authorizing power-of-attorney documentation accompanied the amended returns. Because 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a) prevents a taxpayer from filing suit to claim a refund without having earlier submitted a “duly filed” refund claim to the IRS, and the 2017 amended returns were for the above reason not “duly filed,” the Claims Court dismissed the case in February 2020. See Dixon v. United States, 147 Fed. Cl. 469, 472–75 (2020) (Dixon I).

Within days of that dismissal, Mr. Dixon filed with the IRS duly signed amended returns for the 2013 and 2014 tax years, though the time allowed for amended returns claiming a refund for 2013 and 2014 had long passed. He shortly proceeded to file a timely appeal of the dismissal to this court, but after briefing, he voluntarily dropped the appeal in September 2020. Then, only days later, he filed a second action in the Claims Court based on the IRS’s failure to act on his duly signed 2020 amended returns. The Claims Court again dismissed Mr. Dixon’s case, concluding that the 2020 amended returns were untimely and that the “informal claim” doctrine was inapplicable here to allow the untimely (but proper) 2020 filings to relate back in time to the timely (but defective) 2017 filings. See Dixon v. United States, 158 Fed. Cl. 69, 75–78, 80 (2022) (Dixon II).

Mr. Dixon appeals. For the reasons that follow, which are different from the reasons set forth by the Claims Court, we affirm.

In re Authwallet, LLC (Nonprecedential)

AuthWallet, LLC (“AuthWallet”) is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 9,292,852 (“the ’852 patent”). It sued Block, Inc., (“Block”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for infringement of the patent. In a decision dated May 3, 2022, the district court granted Block’s motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and dismissed AuthWallet’s complaint. It did so after finding that the claims of the ’852 patent are directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. AuthWallet, LLC v. Block, Inc., 602 F. Supp. 3d 620 (S.D.N.Y. 2022). Following the entry of final judgment, AuthWallet appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

In re Universal Electronics, Inc. (Nonprecedential)

Universal Electronics Inc. (UEI) appeals a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) that affirmed an Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–12 of U.S. Patent Application No. 15/962,451 (’451 application) as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Ex Parte Pouw, No. 2020-004505, 2021 WL 4745439, at *9 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 8, 2021) (Decision). Because the Board failed to address UEI’s arguments identifying a hole in the rejection, we vacate and remand.

Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Nonprecedential)

Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. sued Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (collectively, “Apotex”) and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. alleging that their abbreviated new drug applications (“ANDAs”) infringed claims in four patents owned by Vanda. Those claims relate to a method of treating Non-24-Hour Sleep-Wake Disorder (“Non-24”) with tasimelteon. The district court held that all of the asserted claims were invalid as obvious. We affirm.