This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, and two summary affirmances. The precedential opinion reverses and remands a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims in a case involving an application for attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. Two of the nonprecedential opinions affirm the Merit Systems Protection Board, another dismisses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the fourth affirms an anti-filing injunction entered by the District of Delaware in a patent case. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders summarily affirming under Rule 36. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

Dobyns v. United States (Precedential)

Jay Anthony Dobyns appeals from a decision of the Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”), denying his application for attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) as untimely. The Claims Court abused its discretion, and it applied the incorrect legal standard. Under the correct standard, the filing was timely. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Swick v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)

Nancy Swick worked as a nurse practitioner, beginning in 2011, at Fort Belvoir Community Hospital, which is operated by the United States Department of Defense. After being informed in December 2012 that she would be placed on a performance improvement plan, she resigned effective January 2013. She then challenged her resignation as involuntary and alleged whistleblower reprisal before the Merit Systems Protection Board. An administrative judge dismissed her challenge for lack of jurisdiction. The Board agreed that it lacked jurisdiction, though for different reasons, and affirmed the dismissal. On Ms. Swick’s petition for review, we affirm.

Broaden v. Department of Transportation (Nonprecedential)

Michael Broaden seeks review of the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) denying corrective action with respect to his unsuccessful applications for employment as an Air Traffic Control (“ATC”) Specialist, MSS-1, Support Specialist with the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”). For the reasons stated below, we affirm the Board’s final decision.

Bennett v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)

Appellant Ronnie Lee Bennett appeals a decision from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims that set aside a February 2022 decision by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals and remanded to the Board for readjudication. Because this non-final order does not fall into the limited class of orders that we will consider under Williams v. Principi, 275 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2002), we dismiss.

Arunachalam v. International Business Machines Co. (Nonprecedential)

Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam, proceeding pro se, appeals from an anti-filing injunction order entered by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The district court also dismissed Dr. Arunachalam’s underlying action. Dr. Arunachalam attempted to appeal both the dismissal of the underlying case and the anti-filing injunction. The appeal was untimely with respect to the underlying action, and we dismissed that appeal in a previous order. Arunachalam v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., No. 22-2121, ECF No. 145, at 3 (Fed. Cir. June 5, 2023). As to the appeal of the injunction order, we conclude that we have jurisdiction and that there was no abuse of discretion by the district court. Therefore, we affirm the injunction order.

Rule 36 Judgments