Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a precedential order sua sponte granting en banc review of an appeal from the Court of Federal Claims. In the order, the Federal Circuit requests new briefing related to the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. This morning, the Federal Circuit released four precedential opinions, one nonprecedential opinion, three nonprecedential orders, and an errata. Of the precedential opinions, one comes in a patent case, one comes in a trademark case, one comes in a government contract case, and the other comes in a veterans case. The lone nonprecedential opinion comes in a pro se appeal. Of the nonprecedential orders, one grants a motion to summarily affirm and the other two dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders as well as links to the errata and dismissals.
Lesko v. United States (Precedential Order)
This case was argued before a panel of three judges on October 9, 2024. A sua sponte request for a poll on whether to consider this case was made. A poll was conducted, and a majority of the judges who are in regular active service voted for sua sponte en banc consideration.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) This case will be heard en banc under 28 U.S.C. § 46 and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 40(c). The court en banc shall consist of all circuit judges in regular active service who are not recused or disqualified in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 46(c).
(2) The parties are requested to file new briefs, which shall be limited to addressing the following questions:
a. Considering Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), how should “officially ordered or approved” in 5 U.S.C. § 5542(a) be interpreted?
b. Is this a case in which “the agency is authorized to exercise a degree of discretion” such that OPM has authority to adopt its writing requirement? Loper, 603 U.S. at 394.
c. Is there a statutory provision (e.g., 5 U.S.C. §§ 1104, 5548) that provides such authority?
AMP Plus, Inc. v. DMF, Inc. (Precedential)
AMP Plus, Inc., doing business as ELCO Lighting, appeals from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which found that ELCO failed to show claim 22 of U.S. Patent No. 9,964,266 was unpatentable as obvious. We affirm.
Associated Energy Group, LLC v. United States (Precedential)
In some cases, a pal is all you need. This is one of those cases.
Appellant Associated Energy Group, LLC (“AEG”) has initiated multiple bid protests concerning several contracts managed by the U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency Energy (“DLA”) to deliver fuel to a U.S. military base (Camp Lemonnier) and nearby airfield (Chabelley Airfield) located in the Republic of Djibouti in the Horn of Africa. This appeal concerns only whether AEG has standing to bring its second bid protest in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (the “Claims Court”), challenging a (now-expired) one-year sole-source bridge contract award to the incumbent contractor. Because this issue is not moot but AEG lacks standing, we affirm the Claims Court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Dollar Financial Group, Inc. v. Brittex Financial, Inc. (Precedential)
Dollar Financial Group, Inc. appeals a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board granting in part and denying in part Brittex Financial, Inc.’s petition for cancellation of two trademark registrations. Because the Board correctly determined that DFG may not rely on the zone of natural expansion doctrine to establish priority and that there was a likelihood of confusion with respect to DFG’s recited pawn brokerage and pawn shop services, we affirm.
Williams v. Collins (Precedential)
Larry Williams appeals the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which concluded that the Department of Veterans Affairs complied with the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(b) in a Statement of the Case sent to Mr. Williams in 1979. Because the Veterans Court correctly interpreted § 3.156(b), we affirm the Veterans Court’s decision.
Ali-Bey v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Messiah Ali-Bey appeals the dismissal of his Complaint by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Cummings v. United States (Nonprecedential Order)
The United States moves to summarily affirm the judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing Elisha Cummings’s complaint over a private landlord-tenant dispute for lack of jurisdiction. Ms. Cummings has not responded but has filed an opening brief.