This morning and late Friday, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and three nonprecedential orders. They precedential opinion addresses a pro se appeal from an arbitrator’s decision regarding termination from the Federal Bureau of Prisons. One of the nonprecedential opinions addresses an appeal from a final decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. The other nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The three orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

Lewis v. Federal Bureau of Prisons (Precedential Opinion)

Petitioner Sha’Lisa Lewis seeks review of an arbitrator’s decision finding that the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) properly terminated Ms. Lewis’s employment during her probationary period.  Ms. Lewis argues primarily that she did not receive notification of her termination until after the completion of her probationary period and that the arbitrator ignored 5 C.F.R. § 315.804, which Ms. Lewis contends provides that an employee is not terminated until she receives such notice.  We conclude that the regulation only requires that the agency make reasonable efforts to inform the employee of the termination and the reasons for it prior to the end of the probationary period.  The government unquestionably made such reasonable efforts here.  We affirm.

Nauset Construction Corp. v. Secretary of the Army (Nonprecedential Opinion)

Nauset Construction Corp. appeals the final decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, which dismissed Nauset’s appeal of a default termination of a government contract as untimely under the Contract Disputes Act.  In particular, Nauset challenges the Board’s fact findings that (1) Nauset was not prejudiced by the appeal notice provided in the government’s termination letter; and (2) the government’s behavior following the termination letter did not vitiate the finality of the termination letter.  Because the Board’s findings are supported by substantial evidence, we affirm the Board’s dismissal.

Paul Hartmann AG v. Attends Healthcare Products, Inc. (Nonprecedential Opinion)

Paul Hartmann AG appeals the final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in four inter partes reviews initiated by Attends Healthcare Products, Inc.  The Board determined that all claims of Hartmann’s U.S. Patent Nos. 8,152,788, 8,784,398, 8,771,249, and 8,708,990 were unpatentable as obvious.  Because the Board based its decision on unsupported assumptions, we vacate the Board’s determinations and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.