This morning the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions, one nonprecedential opinion, and three nonprecedential orders. The first precedential opinion affirms a judgment of the District of Delaware regarding an award of attorney’s fees in a patent case. The second affirms a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the third affirms a judgment of the Court of International Trade. The nonprecedential opinion partially reverses a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims in a government contract case. All of the orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

Dragon Intellectual Property LLC v. Dish Network L.L.C. (Precedential)

DISH Network L.L.C. (DISH) and Sirius XM Radio Inc. (SXM) (collectively, Appellants) appeal the United States District Court for the District of Delaware’s denial-in-part of Appellants’ motion for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC (Dragon) cross appeals the district court’s grant-in-part of attorneys’ fees. For the following reasons, we affirm.

Smith v. McDonough (Precedential)

Mark W. Smith (“Smith”), a United States Navy veteran, appeals the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) affirming the denial by the Board of Veterans Appeals (“Board”) of Smith’s motion to revise a prior Board decision on the basis of clear and unmistakable error (“CUE”). Because the Veterans Court did not legally err in interpreting the CUE standard in 38 C.F.R. § 20.1403, we affirm.

Asociacion De Exportadores E Industriales v. United States (Precedential)

Appellants, three organizations of Spanish olive producers (collectively “Asemesa”), appeal from a decision of the Court of International Trade (“the Trade Court”) regarding a countervailing duty imposed on olives imported from Spain. Asemesa argues that an order from the Department of Commerce imposing a countervailing duty on imported olives was contrary to law and that the Trade Court should have overturned the order. The United States and the Coalition for Fair Trade in Ripe Olives argue that Commerce’s factual findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the Trade Court’s decision should be upheld. We affirm.

Michael Stapleton Associates, Ltd. v. United States (Nonprecedential)

This appeal arises from bid protests concerning solicitations issued by the United States Postal Service (USPS) to purchase explosive-detection services for the screening of mail placed on passenger aircraft. As relevant here, the Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) upheld two aspects of the solicitations challenged by one of the eventual awardees, Michael Stapleton Associates (MSA), but, on challenges by other bidders, the court held that, because MSA had immitigable organizational conflicts of interest, USPS had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in allowing MSA to bid at all, and the court ordered USPS to reevaluate the 2022 solicitation and barred MSA from participation in the resulting procurement process (for simplicity, the resulting “resolicitations”). Michael Stapleton Associates, Ltd. v. United States, 163 Fed. Cl. 297, 308, 342 (2022) (MSA). MSA appeals on the three issues just noted: the upholding of the two aspects it challenged and the ordered resolicitations in which it is barred from participating. We affirm the Claims Court’s rejection of the two MSA-brought challenges. But we agree with MSA that the Claims Court erred in holding that USPS should have excluded MSA from the bidding in the challenged solicitations and therefore in ordering resolicitations.