This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and four nonprecedential orders. The first precedential opinion comes in a government contract case, while the second comes in a patent case. The first nonprecedential opinion comes in a tax case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, while the second comes in an appeal from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. Two of the nonprecedential orders grant motions to transfer, a third denies a petition for a writ of mandamus, and the fourth is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and all of the orders other than the dismissal, which we link.
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.
Vascular Solutions LLC v. Medtronic, Inc. (Precedential)
Vascular Solutions LLC, Teleflex LLC, Arrow International LLC, and Teleflex Life Sciences LLC (collectively, Teleflex) filed a patent infringement suit against Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic Vascular, Inc. (collectively, Medtronic) in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, asserting forty claims across seven patents: U.S. Patent No. 8,048,032 (the ’032 patent); U.S. Patent No. 8,142,413 (the ’413 patent); U.S. Patent No. RE45,380 (the ’380 patent); U.S. Patent No. RE45,760 (the ’760 patent); U.S. Patent No. RE45,776 (the ’776 patent); U.S. Patent No. RE46,116 (the ’116 patent); and U.S. Patent No. RE47,379 (the ’379 patent). After conducting claim construction proceedings over ten of the asserted claims, the district court concluded the claim limitation “substantially rigid portion/segment” was indefinite and invalidated all asserted claims. Vascular Sols. LLC v. Medtronic, Inc., No.
19-CV-1760 (PJS/TNL), 2024 WL 95193 (D. Minn. Jan. 9, 2024). The parties stipulated to final judgment based on that determination. J.A. 22–23. Teleflex appeals. We vacate the final judgment and remand for further proceedings.
Baney v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Ramon D. Baney appeals the final decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims granting judgment to the government on Mr. Baney’s claim for a tax refund and the government’s counterclaim for return of an erroneous tax refund. We affirm.
Contrack Watts-Uejo Kogyo JV v. Secretary of the Army (Nonprecedential)
Contrack Watts, Inc. and Uejo Kogyo K.K., two parties in a joint venture for federal procurement, appeal the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals’ decision that it lacked jurisdiction to review the joint venture’s appeal because the underlying claim was invalidly submitted. Because we hold that the claim was submitted by a party not authorized to bind the joint venture, we affirm.
Bhuiyan v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential Order)
In response to this court’s July 17, 2024 show cause order, the Merit Systems Protection Board urges transfer. Yeasin Bhuiyan has not filed a response. This matter and all case filings are transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
Proctor v. United States Agency for Global Media (Nonprecedential Order)
The Merit Systems Protection Board affirmed the decision to remove Annephia M. Proctor from federal employment. She petitioned this court for review, and her Statement Concerning Discrimination states that she raised discrimination claims before the Board, does not wish to abandon those claims, and has filed an action in federal district court from the Board’s decision. ECF No. 3. Responding to this court’s show cause order, the United States Agency for Global Media urges transfer. Ms. Proctor responds and asks this court to retain jurisdiction. We transfer this case.
In re Chisum (Nonprecedential Order)
Ramey Alaine Chisum petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States Court of Federal Claims to enter judgment in her favor and moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The petition and motion are denied.