This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion affirms a judgment of the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals. The first nonprecedential opinion affirms a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction by the Court of Federal Claims, while the second affirms a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims denying attorneys fees in a patent dispute. The nonprecedential order transfers an appeal in a copyright infringement case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the order.
International Development Solutions, LLC v. Secretary of State (Precedential)
International Development Solutions, LLC (IDS), an armed security service contractor, appeals the final decision of the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals. After finding no entitlement to reimbursement, the Board denied IDS’s consolidated appeal seeking cost-reimbursement of tax payments made by related corporate entities. Because substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that IDS did not present evidence that tax amounts paid “were costs incurred by IDS, the contractor,” rather than by entities higher in IDS’s ownership chain, we affirm.
Khuc v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Luan P. Khuc appeals the Order and Final Judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims that, pursuant to RCFC 12(h)(3), dismissed his complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Khuc v. United States, No. 23-2036-CNL (Fed. Cl. Nov. 29, 2023), ECF Nos. 5, 6; Appellant’s Br. 21–22.1 We affirm.
Giesecke & Devrient GmbH v. United States (Nonprecedential)
HID Global Corporation (“HID”) appeals from the United States Court of Federal Claims’ denial of attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. We affirm the decision of the Court of Federal Claims, but on a different ground. HID is not a prevailing party, and thus attorney fees are not appropriate under § 285. We do not separately address the Court of Federal Claims’ determination that this case is exceptional or whether the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction to grant attorney fees under § 285.
World Media Alliance Label, Inc. v. Believe SAS (Nonprecedential)
When this court lacks jurisdiction, we shall transfer an appeal to another court where it could have been brought at the time it was filed but only if it is in the interest of justice to do so. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Though the appellee urges dismissal of the appeal as frivolous, we deem it the better course to transfer to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, where the appellee may pursue such argument.