This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions. Two come in pro se cases and the other is a patent case on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Gard v. Office of Personnel Management (Nonprecedential)
Bradley Gard appeals a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) denying his petition to waive recovery of an overpayment of his disability retirement benefits. For the following reasons, we dismiss.
Maxwell, Ltd. v. Amperex Technology Limited (Nonprecedential)
Maxell, Ltd. appeals from three decisions of the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) holding claims 1–5 of U.S. Patent 8,691,446 (“the ’446 patent”), claims 1–5 of U.S. Patent 9,350,019 (“the ’019 patent”), and claims 1–11 of U.S. Patent 9,077,035 (“the ’035 patent”) unpatentable as obvious. Amperex Tech. Ltd. v. Maxell, Ltd., No. IPR2021-01440 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2023) (“’1440 Decision”), Appeal No. 23-2256, J.A. 1–42; Amperex Tech. Ltd. v. Maxell, Ltd., No. IPR2021-01443 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2023), Appeal No. 23-2256, J.A. 43–85; Amperex Tech. Ltd. v. Maxell, Ltd., No. IPR2021-01441 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2023) (“’1441 Decision”), Appeal No. 23-2257, J.A. 1–44.2
For the following reasons, we affirm.
Saltzman v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Jon Saltzman appeals the decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) dismissing his complaint for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. Saltzman v. United States, No. 13-cv-1014, 2024 WL 1575211 (Fed. Cl. Apr. 11, 2024) (Decision). While we agree with the Claims Court that it currently does not possess the power to adjudicate Mr. Saltzman’s takings claim, we vacate the Claims Court dismissal for reasons explained below.