Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions, three nonprecedential opinions, two Rule 36 judgments, and one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances and dismissals.
Beacon Point Associates LLC v. Department of Veterans Affairs (Precedential)
Beacon Point Associates LLC appeals the United States Civilian Board of Contract Appeals’ dismissal of its appeal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The single question before us is whether the contract between Beacon Point and the Department of Veterans Affairs incorporated by reference Beacon Point’s Quote. Because the Board correctly determined that the contract does not incorporate any terms of Beacon Point’s Quote, we affirm.
Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation v. Unified Patents, LLC (Precedential)
Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation (Dolby) appeals from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) determining all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,237,577 are not unpatentable. Because Dolby fails to establish an injury in fact sufficient to confer standing to appeal, we dismiss.
La Molisana S.P.A. v. United States (Precedential)
La Molisana S.p.A. and Valdigrano Di Flavio Pagani S.r.L. (collectively, “La Molisana”) challenge the final results of the United States Department of Commerce’s (“Commerce”) twenty-third administrative review of the antidumping order on certain pasta from Italy. Certain Pasta From Italy: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2018–2019, 86 Fed. Reg. 28,336, 28,336–38 (May 26, 2021). The Court of International Trade (“Trade Court”) sustained the final results, concluding that La Molisana had not demonstrated that the alleged flaws in Commerce’s model-match methodology were commercially significant. For the following reasons we vacate-in-part, affirm-in-part, and remand for further proceedings.
Apple Inc. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC (Nonprecedential)
Apple Inc. appeals the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s Final Written Decision in an inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924. Apple challenges the Board’s finding that an asserted prior art reference fails to qualify as analogous art. Because substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding, we affirm.
Craft v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
Bettey Sue Craft was injured while working for the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) in 1983 and began receiving workers’ compensation benefits from the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). By her extensive account, submitted pro se at all stages, Ms. Craft had disputes over the years with both OWCP (relating, e.g., to benefits owed or received) and DoD (relating, e.g., to returning to employment), and she may have retired and ceased seeking reemployment years before initiating the present proceeding.
In 2019, Ms. Craft filed an appeal with the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board), naming DoD as “the agency that took the action or made the decision [she was] appealing.” Respondent’s Supplemental Appendix (hereafter “S. Appx.”) 24. The Board-assigned administrative judge (AJ) construed Ms. Craft’s arguments as challenges to OWCP’s decisions regarding her entitlement to workers’ compensation benefits and dismissed the appeal on the ground that the Board lacked jurisdiction over her appeal because it was precluded from reviewing OWCP’s decisions by 5 U.S.C. § 8128. Craft v. Department of Defense, No. AT3443-19-0366-I-1, 2019 WL 2017644 (M.S.P.B. Apr. 29, 2019) (Initial Decision); S. Appx. 9–18. Ms. Craft appealed to the full Board, further arguing, among other things, that she suffered reprisal for whistleblowing. The full Board affirmed, declining to review the whistleblower-reprisal claim as untimely and agreeing with the AJ that § 8128 precluded the Board from exercising jurisdiction over the remaining claims. Craft v. Department of Defense, No. AT3443-19-0366-I-1, 2024 WL 2291937, at *1 (M.S.P.B. May 20, 2024) (Final Order); S. Appx. 1–8.
Ms. Craft appeals to this court. Because additional analysis is required for this court to decide even its own jurisdiction, much less the correctness of the Board’s decision, we remand the matter for additional proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Gavin v. Office of Personnel Managment (Nonprecedential)
Amy Gavin petitions from a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) affirming the Office of Personnel Management’s (“OPM”) decision denying her request for waiver from repayment of a Federal Employees’ Retirement System (“FERS”) benefit overpayment. Gavin v. OPM, No. AT-0845-20-0812-I-1, 2024 WL 2956786, at *1 (M.S.P.B. June 11, 2024) (adopting the initial decision, Gavin v. OPM, No. AT-0845-20-0812-I-1, 2020 MSPB LEXIS 4360 (M.S.P.B. Oct. 30, 2020) (“Decision”), as the Board’s final decision). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.