This morning the Federal Circuit released four precedential opinions, one nonprecedential opinion, and one nonprecedential order. The first two precedential opinions come in government contract cases, the third is a patent case, and the fourth is an appeal from the Court of Federal Claims in a case involving an application for correction of military records. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a veterans case. The nonprecedential order is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.
Anchorage v. United States (Precedential)
The United States appeals a decision from the United States Court of Federal Claims holding that the United States breached two contracts with the municipality of Anchorage to improve the Port of Alaska. Anchorage and the United States signed a Memorandum of Understanding in 2003 and a Memorandum of Agreement in 2011 to upgrade and expand the Port of Alaska. The Court of Federal Claims held that the government breached the 2003 agreement by not delivering a defect-free port and breached the 2011 agreement by settling subcontractor claims without conferring with Anchorage.
Because the 2003 Memorandum of Understanding did not require the United States to deliver a defect-free port, we vacate the Court of Federal Claims’ decision as it relates to the 2003 Memorandum of Understanding and remand for further proceedings as described below. We affirm the Court of Federal Claims’ determination that the United States breached the 2011 Memorandum of Agreement by settling subcontractor claims without conferring with Anchorage, as well as the court’s award of damages to Anchorage for the United States’ breach of the 2011 Memorandum of Agreement.
eSimplicity, Inc. v. United States (Precedential)
The government appeals the United States Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) decision concluding that the United States Department of the Navy (Navy) erred by deeming untimely—and therefore not considering—a proposal that eSimplicity, Inc. (eSimplicity) submitted in response to a solicitation. See eSimplicity, Inc. v. United States, 162 Fed. Cl. 372 (2022) (Decision). For the following reasons, we dismiss this appeal.
Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLC (Precedential)
Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (“PAN”) successfully petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of claims 1–18 of Centripetal Networks, LLC’s (“Centripetal’s”) U.S. Patent No. 10,530,903 (the “’903 patent”), asserting unpatentability for obviousness based on three prior-art references, two of which are relevant here. PAN appeals the final written decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”), which concluded that PAN had not established by preponderant evidence that the claims would have been obvious over the relevant prior art combination. Because the Board erred by failing to explain its holding and reasoning regarding motivation to combine, we vacate and remand.
Pipes v. United States (Precedential)
Malcolm Pipes appeals the decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) granting the United States’ motion for judgment on the administrative record and denying Mr. Pipes’s. Pipes v. United States, 157 Fed. Cl. 483 (2022) (Decision). Mr. Pipes, a former reservist in the United States Air Force (Air Force), seeks disability-retirement pay and benefits through his Application for Correction of Military Records filed with the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).
This case is before us for a second time. In the first appeal, we reversed, holding that Mr. Pipes was in a duty status—specifically, inactive-duty training (IDT) status—when he was ordered to participate in the Air Force’s Self-paced Fitness Improvement Program (SFIP). Pipes v. United States, 791 F. App’x 910, 916 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Pipes I). We reversed because, “to the extent their analysis turned on [Mr.] Pipes’[s] duty status at the time of his orders, both the AFBCMR and the Claims Court erred in concluding that [Mr.] Pipes was not lawfully ordered to perform the SFIP designed for him.” Id. Although the SFIP was ordinarily offered to reservists as a recommendation, Mr. Pipes received a sui generis mandate to participate. Id. at 916 n.4. Pipes I did not address, however, the question of whether Mr. Pipes was in a duty status when performing the SFIP, nor did it suggest that the sui generis order to participate automatically placed him into such status. On remand, the Claims Court and the AFBCMR denied relief to Mr. Pipes, concluding that, at the time of his injury, he was not in IDT status. For the reasons explained below, we affirm.
Petite v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
Florence Petite (“Ms. Petite”), the daughter of veteran Darren J. Petite, appeals a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) in Petite v. McDonough, No. 19-5815 (Vet. App. Mar. 4, 2023). Ms. Petite applied for an award of attorney’s fees and expenses pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, which the Veterans Court rejected.
For the reasons provided below, we conclude that the Veterans Court erred as a matter of law when it failed to analyze whether the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”)’s administrative position, the policy adopted by the Board of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Board”), was substantially justified. We vacate and remand.