Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and a Rule 36 judgment. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal in a patent case decided by a district court. Both nonprecedential opinions come in pro se cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgment and yesterday’s dismissal.
Future Link Systems, LLC v. Realtek Semiconductor Corp. (Precedential)
Realtek Semiconductor Corp. (“Realtek”) appeals the district court’s denial of (1) its motions for fees, costs, and sanctions; and (2) its discovery requests related to confidentiality. We hold that the district court erred in its denial of fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) because, contrary to the district court’s decision, Realtek is a prevailing party. We also hold that the district court did not err in its denial of Rule 11 sanctions and fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Finally, with the understanding that most of Realtek’s discovery requests are now irrelevant, we hold that the district court did not err in denying the sole discovery request that remains relevant on appeal. Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, we vacate-in-part, affirm-in-part, and remand.
Engen v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Carol Engen (“Engen”) appeals from a judgment of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, dismissing her tax refund claims under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”). See Engen v. United States, 172 Fed. Cl. 651 (2024). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). Since we write for the parties, we assume familiarity with the record. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Ziegler v. Department of the Interior (Nonprecedential)
Victor R. Ziegler, Sr., petitions for review of a Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) decision that dismissed his appeal regarding the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (“USERRA”) due to collateral estoppel. We affirm.