This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, one nonprecedential order, and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. The precedential opinion, which drew a dissent from Judge Reyna, addresses the application of the Barring Act to the settlement of Combat-Related Special Compensation claims. The nonprecedential opinion addresses a pro se appeal from a district court judgment in a patent case. The nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissal and summary affirmances.

Soto v. United States (Precedential)

The government appeals a decision from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas holding that the six-year statute of limitations in the Barring Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3702, does not apply to claims for unpaid combat-related special compensation governed by 10 U.S.C. § 1413a. Because we conclude that the district court erred by holding that the Barring Act did not apply to the settlement of those claims, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REYNA, Circuit Judge, dissenting.

Today, the majority holds that Mr. Soto and other similarly-situated veterans injured as a result of combat cannot recover more than six years of retroactive Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC).  I believe that the CRSC statute addresses the settlement of claims against the government and displaces the Barring Act’s six-year statute of limitations.  I would affirm the lower court decision finding that the Barring Act does not apply to CRSC claims.    

I respectfully dissent. 

Golden v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (Nonprecedential)

Larry Golden filed a complaint against Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging infringement by Samsung of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,163,287, 9,589,439, and 9,096,189.  Samsung moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); Mr. Golden opposed Samsung’s motion and cross-moved for summary judgment of infringement.  The district court granted Samsung’s motion, dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and denied Mr. Golden’s motion for summary judgment.  Golden v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 23-cv-00048, 2023 WL 3919466 (N.D. Cal. June 8, 2023).  Mr. Golden filed a timely appeal, which we have jurisdiction to decide under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).  We affirm.


Rule 36 Judgments