This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case along with three nonprecedential opinions. The precedential patent opinion addresses divided infringement and principles of vicarious liability. The first nonprecedential opinion comes in a takings case, while the other two come in pro se cases. The court also released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.
CloudofChange, LLC v. NCR Corp. (Precedential)
This case asks us to consider again whether to attribute a customer’s use of a claimed system to the manufacturer of only part of the system. Appellant NCR Corporation (“NCR”) appeals the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas’s denial of judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) of no direct infringement. NCR asserts it could not directly infringe the claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,400,640 and 10,083,012 as a matter of law because NCR itself does not use the claimed system; rather, its merchants do. The district court found that the merchants’ use of the system could be attributed to NCR under our precedent involving divided infringement and principles of vicarious liability. For the following reasons, we reverse.
Dibrell v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Calvin Lydell Dibrell appeals a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because Mr. Dibrell’s claims fall outside the scope of the Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction, we affirm.
Doyle v. United States (Nonprecedential)
James Doyle owns land in an area in Utah that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) has designated as critical habitat for the Mojave desert tortoise. After years of failed efforts to obtain a permit necessary to allow him to develop his land, Mr. Doyle sued the federal government, contending that his property had been subject to a taking under the Fifth Amendment. The Court of Federal Claims found his claim was not ripe and dismissed his complaint. We affirm.
Marquand v. Department of Defense (Nonprecedential)
Veronica Marquand appeals the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board sustaining her removal from her position at the Defense Contract Management Agency. Because the Merit Systems Protection Board’s decision was in accordance with the law and supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.