This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and three nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion reverses and remands in a Tucker Act case decided by the Court of Federal Claims. The first nonprecedential opinion affirms a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which dismissed a complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The second nonprecedential opinion dismisses an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. One of the orders dismisses an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board as moot, while the two other orders are Rule 36 summary affirmances. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the links to the orders.

Percipient.AI, Inc. v. United States (Precedential)

This case principally involves the question of whether a prospective offeror of commercial items to a government contractor may bring an action against the Government for alleged procurement-related statutory violations under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1) (allowing suit by “interested party objecting to . . . any alleged violation of statute or regulation in connection with a procurement or a proposed procurement”), where the allegations do not challenge a contract, proposed contract, or solicitation for a contract between the Government and its contractor or the issuance of a task order under such a contract. Percipient.ai, Inc. appeals the decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims granting the Government’s and intervenor CACI, Inc.-Federal’s (collectively, “Defendants”) motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The trial court erred in holding that the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (FASA) task order bar, 10 U.S.C. § 3406(f)(1), applies to Percipient’s protest, thereby removing the case from coverage by the Tucker Act. Separately, we reject Defendants’ alternative arguments for affirming the trial court, which are based on the Tucker Act itself, standing, and timeliness. We thus reverse and remand.

Horn v. United States (Nonprecedential)

Anthony Romero Horn, Sr. appeals from a final decision by the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Horn v. United States, No. 23-509 C, 2023 WL 6182544 (Fed. Cl. Sept. 22, 2023) (“Decision”). Because the Court of Federal Claims properly dismissed the complaint, we affirm.

Babb v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)

Hubert Babb, a veteran, appeals from a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“the Veterans Court”), which denied his petition for a writ of mandamus directed to the Department of Veterans Affairs (“the DVA”). We dismiss the appeal as falling outside our jurisdiction.


Rule 36 Judgments