This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and two nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion affirms in part and vacates in part a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims. The first nonprecedential opinion affirms three decisions made by the Patent Trial and Appeal board, while the second nonprecedential opinion affirms a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction by the Court of Federal Claims. Both of the orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.
Richardson v. United States (Precedential)
The government appeals from a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims granting summary judgment in favor of Barbara D. Richardson, the Nevada Commissioner of Insurance, acting in her position as the receiver (the “Receiver”) for the Nevada Health CO-OP (“Nevada Health”). Richardson v. United States, 157 Fed. Cl. 342 (2021) (“Decision”). The Court of Federal Claims held that the government improperly withheld statutory payments it owed Nevada Health. Decision at 347. The trial court also held, sua sponte, that the government cannot—in the future—invoke 31 U.S.C. § 3728 to withhold these payments owed. Id. at 374–75. For the reasons below, we affirm the court’s judgment in favor of Nevada Health on its claims for withheld payments. However, we hold that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction when it purported to address § 3728, and we vacate that portion of its order.
Unification Technologies LLC v. Micron Technology Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Unification Technologies LLC (UTL) appeals the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (Board) final written decisions determining certain challenged claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,533,406 (’406 patent) and 8,762,658 (’658 patent) and all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,632,727 (’727 patent) are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Micron Tech., Inc. v. Unification Techs. LLC, No. IPR2021-00343, 2022 WL 22840837 (P.T.A.B. July 8, 2022) (’406 Patent Decision); Micron Tech., Inc. v. Unification Techs. LLC, No. IPR2021-00344, 2022 WL 22840770 (P.T.A.B. July 8, 2022) (’658 Patent Decision); Micron Tech., Inc. v. Unification Techs. LLC, No. IPR2021-00345, 2022 WL 2784779 (P.T.A.B. July 15, 2022) (’727 Patent Decision). Contrary to UTL’s arguments, the Board’s decisions did not deprive UTL of due process and the Board did not err in its obviousness analysis. We therefore affirm all three decisions.
Pulnikova v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Plaintiff Valentina Pulnikova, proceeding pro se, appeals from an order of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing her complaint against the United States and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). Dr. Pulnikova alleges various falsifications in connection with the processing of her patent applications, contending these amount to violations of her rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The trial court granted the government’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, based on its conclusion that the court did not have jurisdiction over § 1983 actions or other allegations sounding in tort. On appeal, Dr. Pulnikova contends that the Court of Federal Claims committed several procedural errors, that an implied contract existed between her and the PTO, that her tort claims arise from breach of that contract, and that the court does have jurisdiction over § 1983 claims. We agree with the Court of Federal Claims that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and, accordingly, affirm its dismissal of Dr. Pulnikova’s complaint.