This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, five nonprecedential orders, and one Rule 36 judgment. The precedential opinion comes in a government contract dispute and vacates a judgment and an injunction, affirms a sanctions order, and remands for further proceedings. Three of the nonprecedential orders deny petitions seeking orders to transfer or not transfer cases, while one remands an appeal with instructions that a district court consider a motion to vacate and the last order was a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders as well as links to the dismissal and Rule 36 judgment.
Oak Grove Technologies, LLC v. United States (Precedential)
This bid protest action originated with the United States Department of the Army (“Army” or “agency”) awarding a contract to F3EA, Inc. (“F3EA”). Another bidder, Oak Grove Technologies, LLC (“Oak Grove”), protested the award, including by filing suit in the Court of Federal Claims. The Court of Federal Claims agreed with Oak Grove that the bidding process had gone awry and, therefore, enjoined the Army from proceeding with its award to F3EA. It further ordered the Army either to begin the procurement process anew or reopen it to conduct discussions with, and accept revised final proposals from, multiple offerors, including Oak Grove. The trial court also sanctioned the government for repeatedly failing to include material evidence in the administrative record. Both F3EA and the government appeal the trial court’s judgment and the injunction. The government additionally appeals the trial court’s sanctions order. We vacate the judgment and the injunction, affirm the sanctions order, and remand for further proceedings.
In re Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC (Nonprecedential Order)
On July 10, 2024, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (“WDTX”) issued an order transferring Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC (“AMR”)’s patent infringement action against Roku, Inc. to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (“NDCA”). AMR now petitions this court for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to reverse or vacate that order. We deny the petition.
In re Datanet (Nonprecedential Order)
Datanet LLC petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking to vacate the order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (“WDTX”) transferring the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (“NDCA”). Dropbox Inc. opposes. The petition is denied.
In re David’s Dozer V-LOC Systems Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
David’s Dozer V-Loc System Inc. and David Armas (collectively, “David’s Dozer”) petition this court for a writ of mandamus challenging the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (“SDFL”)’s order transferring the underlying action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa (“NDIA”). Deere & Company and John Deere Construction and Forestry Company (collectively, “Deere”) oppose the petition. The petition is denied.
Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Ebay, Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
Due to settlement, Lexos Media IP, LLC moves unopposed to dismiss this appeal as moot and to vacate the district court’s underlying judgment and order. Alternatively, Lexos Media moves to remand this appeal with instructions that the district court consider a motion to vacate. The motion is granted to the extent that the appeal is remanded. In granting the motion, this court takes no position as to whether the district court should grant vacatur.