This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and three nonprecedential orders. The lone precedential opinion comes in a government contract case on appeal from a decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a patent case on appeal from the District of Nevada, while the other comes in a case on appeal from a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Of the nonprecedential orders, two transfer cases and the other remands a case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders and a link to the remand.
Flightsafety International Inc. v. Secretary of the Air Force (Precedential)
When the government acquires products or services from contractors, the government obtains rights to the technical data provided pursuant to the contract. The scope of the government’s rights depends both on how development of that data was funded and the nature of the data. This case presents questions about the government’s and a contractor’s rights with respect to commercial technical data developed exclusively at private expense under federal acquisition statutes and the Defense Acquisition Regulation Supplement (“DFARS”), 48 C.F.R. § 200, et seq., and the rights of the contractor to place restrictive markings on its technical data.
The U.S. Air Force contracted with CymSTAR, LLC (“CymSTAR”), which in turn awarded two subcontracts to appellant FlightSafety International Inc. (“FlightSafety”), to provide flight simulation products and training services. In performing the subcontracts, FlightSafety supplied the government with commercial technical data that included various restrictive markings. The Air Force challenged the restrictive markings. The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“Board”) determined that, under the applicable statutes and regulations, the restrictive markings were improper. See FlightSafety Int’l Inc., ASBCA No. 62659, 23-1 BCA ¶ 38,245.
FlightSafety appeals. We affirm.
Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
This 18-year-old patent infringement action comes before this court for the fifth time. The patentee, plaintiff Halo Electronics, Inc. (“Halo”), appeals from the district court’s denial of its motion for enhanced damages and attorney fees, and from the district court’s denial of a new trial on damages. The defendants, Pulse Electronics, Inc. and Pulse Electronics Corporation (collectively, “Pulse”) cross-appeal from the district court’s award of prejudgment interest. We affirm the district court’s denial of the motion for enhanced damages and attorney fees, as well as the court’s denial of the motion for a new damages trial. We vacate the district court’s award of prejudgment interest and remand to the district court to re-calculate the interest due to Halo as directed in this opinion.
Harrington v. Department of Veterans Affairs (Nonprecedential)
Charles Harrington, Jr. appeals a final order from the Merit Systems Protection Board affirming his removal from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs for releasing confidential agency information. We affirm.
Davis-Clewis v. Department of Veterans Affairs (Nonprecedential Order)
Vera Davis-Clewis appealed her alleged involuntary demotion and reduction in grade to the Merit Systems Protection Board and raised affirmative defenses of discrimination. In her filings before this court, Ms. Davis-Clewis indicates that she continues to pursue her discrimination claims, such that this court ordered the parties to show cause whether this matter should be dismissed or transferred to an appropriate court. The Department of Veterans Affairs urges dismissal or transfer. Ms. Davis-Clewis opposes dismissal or transfer.
Parrish v. Department of Health and Human Services (Nonprecedential Order)
The Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) moves to dismiss Donna D. Parrish’s petition for review for lack of jurisdiction, citing her pending petition for review with the Merit Systems Protection Board and her claims of discrimination raised during the proceedings. Ms. Parrish responds in opposition and moves for a stay. We transfer the case.