This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions, two in patent cases, one appealed from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, and one appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals in one MSPB case and one patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.
Amatea/Grimberg JV v. Secretary of the Navy (Nonprecedential)
Amatea/Grimberg Joint Venture appeals the decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals that denied AGJV’s constructive acceleration claim and work hours claim. Because we conclude that the Board applied the correct legal standards and substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusions, we affirm.
Directpacket Research, Inc. v. Polycom, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Plaintiff-Appellant directPacket Research, Inc. (“directPacket”) sued Defendant-Appellee Polycom, Inc. (“Polycom”) for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,773,588 B2 (the “’588 patent”). The ’588 patent teaches a system and method for multimedia communication that employs an intermediate communication protocol to achieve interoperability between incompatible multimedia systems. The district court granted Polycom’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that the ’588 patent is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. For reasons explained below, we affirm.
Golden v. Google LLC (Nonprecedential)
Before the court is Larry Golden’s appeal of a decision by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissing his amended complaint for patent infringement against Google LLC (“Google”). Golden v. Google LLC, No. 22-CV-05246-RFL, 2024 WL 1880336, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2024) (“Decision”), recons. den., No. 22-CV-05246-RFL, 2024 WL 2745904 (N.D. Cal. May 28, 2024). For the reasons stated below, we affirm.
Morris v. Environmental Protection Agency (Nonprecedential)
Susan M. Morris petitions for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board’s final order, in which the Board denied Ms. Morris’s individual right of action appeal and concluded that the Environmental Protection Agency met its burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that it would have removed Ms. Morris notwithstanding Ms. Morris’s protected disclosures. For the following reasons, we affirm.