Opinions
on

Late Friday afternoon, the Federal Circuit released an errata. This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, three nonprecedential opinions, and four Rule 36 summary affirmances. Of the two precedential opinions, one comes in Tucker Act case and the other comes in a patent case. Of the nonprecedential opinions, one comes in a takings case, one in a veterans case, and the other is on appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances and errata.

Cotter Corp. v. United States (Precedential)

In 1957, in order to protect the public and to encourage private-sector engagement in activities involving atomic energy, Congress enacted the Price-Anderson Act (PAA), Pub. L. 85-256, 71 Stat. 576 (Sept. 2, 1957) to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (1954 Act or AEA), Pub. L. 83-703, 68 Stat. 919 (Aug. 30, 1954), which had replaced the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (1946 Act), Pub. L. 79-585, 60 Stat. 755 (Aug. 1, 1946). The PAA provided, as relevant here, that when the government entered into a contract for a contractor to engage in specified nuclear-energy “activities under the risk of public liability for a substantial nuclear incident” and the contract included a specified indemnity provision, the government “shall indemnify” not only its contractor, but also the broader class of “persons indemnified” for “public liability arising out of or in connection with the contractual activity.” PAA § 4, 71 Stat. at 576–77 (adding new § 170(d) to AEA). The PAA defined the key terms: “person indemnified” included both “the person with whom an indemnity agreement is executed and any other person who may be liable for public liability”; “public liability” broadly covered “any legal liability arising out of or resulting from a nuclear incident”; and “nuclear incident” broadly covered occurrences within the United States causing personal or property-related harm “arising out of or resulting from the radioactive, toxic, explosive, or other hazardous properties of source, special nuclear, or byproduct material.” Id. § 3, 71 Stat. at 576 (adding § 11(o), (r), (u) to AEA). A 1962 amendment to the 1954 Act, made by Pub. L. 87-615, §§ 4–5, 76 Stat. 409, 410 (Aug. 29, 1962) (1962 Act), essentially reiterated the definitions of “nuclear incident” and “person indemnified” for domestic incidents.

In 1962, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) entered into a PAA-covered, indemnity-containing contract (the Indemnification Agreement) with Mallinckrodt Chemical Works (Mallinckrodt), which had processed uranium for the government’s use since early in World War II. In the late 1960s, Cotter Corporation (N.S.L.) (Cotter) bought some of the radioactive material and residues (“source materials” under the AEA as amended) originally produced by Mallinckrodt. And in 2012, numerous plaintiffs brought a tort action in federal court in Missouri against Cotter, Mallinckrodt, and others, the plaintiffs seeking compensation based on allegations of serious harm from the release of radioactive material (i.e., a “nuclear incident” under the PAA-amended AEA) in the St. Louis area. Public Redacted Complaint at 9 ¶ 36, Cotter Corporation (N.S.L.) v. United States, 165 Fed. Cl. 138 (Fed. Cl. 2023) (No. 22-cv-00414), ECF No. 13 (Public Redacted Compl.).

In 2022, Cotter brought the present action against the United States under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a), in the United States Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court), seeking indemnification under the PAA for the costs of defending and settling the Missouri case, which Cotter asserted was a “public liability” action under the PAA. Id. at 1 ¶ 1, 2 ¶ 4, 3 ¶¶ 7–9, 9–13 ¶¶ 36–52. In the Claims Court, Cotter alleged that it was entitled to government indemnification on two bases under the Tucker Act. One basis was directly under the money-mandating PAA. Id. at 13–14 ¶¶ 54–59. The other was under the (AEC-Mallinckrodt) Indemnification Agreement, of which Cotter asserted it was a third-party beneficiary. Id. at 14–15 ¶¶ 61–74.

The government moved to dismiss Cotter’s complaint for failure to state a claim for statutory indemnification and, regarding the claim for contractual indemnification, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (based on lack of standing) and for failure to state a claim. The Claims Court granted the motion on all grounds. Cotter Corporation (N.S.L.) v. United States, 165 Fed. Cl. 138, 142, 152 (Fed. Cl. 2023) (Claims Court Opinion). We now reverse, and we remand for the case to proceed past the motion-to-dismiss stage.

Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc. (Precedential)

Kroy IP Holdings, LLC sued Groupon, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging patent infringement. Groupon moved to dismiss Kroy’s operative complaint, arguing that Kroy was collaterally estopped from alleging infringement of the asserted claims based on two prior inter partes review decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Both of the Board’s prior decisions involved the same patent, but claims other than the asserted claims. The district court granted Groupon’s motion to dismiss. Kroy timely appeals. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand.

Aljindi v. United States (Nonprecedential)

Dr. Ahmad Aljindi has published research on information security, artificial intelligence (AI), and legacy information systems, and he owns a small business, AI Net Group LLC. In 2021, his business unsuccessfully sought an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) from the federal government’s Small Business Administration (SBA). In 2024, after he had brought several other suits, Dr. Aljindi filed a complaint in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court), seeking $65.4 million in compensation (a) for the government’s use of his research, which he said was a taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment, and (b) for the SBA’s denial of the loan. The Claims Court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and failure to prosecute. Aljindi v. United States, No. 24-242, 2024 WL 3024654, at *1, *5 (Fed. Cl. June 17, 2024) (Claims Court Opinion). The Claims Court also denied Dr. Aljindi’s motion to disqualify Judge Tapp. Dr. Aljindi appeals. We affirm.

Messer v. Collins (Nonprecedential)

James B. Messer appeals from the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“the Veterans Court”) affirming the decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“the Board”) declining to reopen Messer’s previously denied claim for service connection for sleep apnea. Messer v. McDonough, No. 21-3353, 2022 WL 3909086 (Vet. App. Aug. 31, 2022) (“Decision”). Because the only argument Messer raises on appeal was not timely presented to the Veterans Court, the argument was forfeited. We therefore affirm.

Mora v. Office of Personnel Management (Nonprecedential)

Manuel Mora, Jr. appeals from a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“the Board”) holding his administrative appeal precluded under the doctrine of res judicata. Mora v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., No. SF-0831-18-0241-I-1, 2024 WL 659619 (M.S.P.B. Feb. 15, 2024). For the following reasons, we affirm.

Rule 36 Summary Affirmances

Errata