This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion affirms a decision of the International Trade Commission. The first nonprecedential opinion affirms a decision of the Court of Federal Claims to grant a motion for summary judgment of a claim and to dismiss another claim for lack of jurisdiction, and the second affirms a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims to dismiss a complaint due to it being barred by the statute of limitations. The order vacates a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the order.
Celanese International Corporation v. International Trade Commission (Precedential)
Celanese International Corporation, Celanese (Malta) Company 2 Limited, and Celanese Sales U.S. Ltd. appeal a decision of the United States International Trade Commission. The International Trade Commission found Celanese’s asserted patent claims invalid under the on-sale bar, 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), because Celanese sold products made using the patented process more than one year before the effective filing dates of the asserted patents. We affirm.
Auld v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Stuart Nichols Auld appeals the final decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“CFC”) granting the Government’s motion for summary judgment on Count I of his complaint and dismissing Count II of his complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Auld v. United States, 2023 WL 2052343, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 16, 2023). We affirm.
Graves v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Michael Graves and Sue Ann Graves (collectively, “Graves”) appeal from the judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims granting the government’s motion to dismiss the complaint because the action is time-barred by the six-year statute of limitations. Graves v. United States, 160 Fed. Cl. 562 (2022) (“Decision”). For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.
Kuhlmann v. Department of Labor (Nonprecedential Order)
Ms. Kuhlmann sought this court’s review after the Board informed her that, due to a recusal, it lacked a quorum, making the initial decision the final decision of the Board. On June 25, 2024, we remanded to the Board for further proceedings in light of the Board’s statement that there was now a quorum. Unbeknownst to the court (and prior to the issuance of our mandate), the Board purported to issue a new final decision on June 20, 2024.
“Normally a petition for judicial review, like an appeal from a judgment of a district court, transfers authority over the case,” Gao v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 728, 729 (7th Cir. 2006) (citing Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56 (1982)), and “[u]ntil the mandate issues[,] . . . any action by the [originating tribunal] is a nullity.” Kusay v. United States, 62 F.3d 192, 194 (7th Cir. 1995). The Board offers no authority for issuing a “new” final decision while the matter was still pending before this court and does not seriously defend it here. We therefore vacate that decision.
We deny Ms. Kuhlmann’s request to vacate the initial decision, which she can challenge before the Board and then before this court if necessary. Finally, Ms. Kuhlmann asks the court to correct the June 25, 2024 order to indicate the Board purported to reopen her appeal before Chairman Harris revised her recusal position. That request, which the Board does not oppose, will be granted to the extent that the court will issue a corrected modified order.