Opinions
on

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions, eleven nonprecedential orders, and a Rule 36 judgment. One of the opinions comes in a pro se case in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board, while the other comes in an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Six of the orders deny petitions for writs of mandamus. Two of these denials come in patent cases. Another four orders dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the orders other than the dismissals, along with links to the dismissals and Rule 36 judgment.

Faris v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)

Andrew Faris petitions for review of two final orders from the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board), which dismissed his two appeals for lack of jurisdiction. Faris v. United States Postal Serv., No. CH-0752-20-0205-I-1, 2024 WL 1855117 (M.S.P.B. Apr. 26, 2024) (Final Order I); Faris. v. United States Postal Serv., No. CH-0752-20-0205-I-1, 2020 WL 1678108 (Apr. 3, 2020) (Initial Decision I); Faris v. United States Postal Serv., No. CH-0353-20-0494-I-1, 2024 WL 1911387 (M.S.P.B. Apr. 30, 2024) (Final Order II); Faris v. United States Postal Serv., No. CH-035320-0494-I-1, 2021 WL 779667 (Feb. 23, 2021) (Initial Decision II). We affirm.

Hurley v. Collins (Nonprecedential)

Annette Hurley appeals a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”), affirming a Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision finding that the character of her discharge from active duty service (August 6, 1980, to January 12, 1983) is a bar to Department of Veterans Affairs’ (“VA”) compensation under 38 C.F.R. § 3.12. Hurley v. McDonough, No. 22-0642, 2023 WL 8108059, at *1, *5 (Vet. App. Nov. 22, 2023); J.A. 29. For the below reasons, we vacate and remand.

In re VirtaMove, Corp. (Nonprecedential Order)

VirtaMove, Corp. brought this patent infringement suit against Google LLC in the Midland/Odessa Division of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (WDTX), but the court transferred it to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (NDCA) under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), emphasizing NDCA’s local interest in resolving the dispute and comparative convenience for potential witnesses. VirtaMove now seeks a writ of mandamus to vacate that transfer order.

We have authority to grant a writ of mandamus as “necessary or appropriate in aid of” our jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), but the petitioner bears a heavy burden. It must show: (1) “no other adequate means to attain the relief [it] desires,” (2) a “clear and indisputable” right to relief, and (3) that the writ is “appropriate under the circumstances.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004). In reviewing § 1404(a) transfer decisions, we apply regional circuit law and grant relief only where there is a “clear” abuse of discretion that produced a “patently erroneous result.” In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 310 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc)). We conclude this standard is not met.

In re VirtaMove, Corp. (Nonprecedential Order)

On April 7, 2025, an administrative judge (AJ) of the Merit Systems Protection Board affirmed Paul Vladimirovich Timchuk’s removal from federal employment. From his filings here, it appears that Mr. Timchuk, on July 21, 2025, attempted to file at the Board an “Emergency Motion to Vacate Initial Decision and Stay Proceedings Pending Restoration of Lawful MSPB Quorum,” but that filing was rejected as improper. ECF No. 2 at 7. He now petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking various relief.

The All Writs Act authorizes courts to issue writs “necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only where the petitioner shows: (1) a clear and indisputable right to relief; (2) no adequate alternative avenue for relief; and (3) that mandamus is appropriate under the circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004). Mr. Timchuk has not met this demanding standard here.

In re Timchuk (Nonprecedential Order)

On April 7, 2025, an administrative judge (AJ) of the Merit Systems Protection Board affirmed Paul Vladimirovich Timchuk’s removal from federal employment. From his filings here, it appears that Mr. Timchuk, on July 21, 2025, attempted to file at the Board an “Emergency Motion to Vacate Initial Decision and Stay Proceedings Pending Restoration of Lawful MSPB Quorum,” but that filing was rejected as improper. ECF No. 2 at 7. He now petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking various relief.

In re Katsigianis (Nonprecedential Order)

Richard K. Katsigianis petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the United States Court of Federal Claims to take various actions, including entry of default judgment in his favor. We deny the petition.

In re Van Well Nursery Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)

Petitioners Van Well Nursery, Inc., Monson Fruit Co. Inc., and Gordon and Sally Goodwin seek a writ of mandamus directing the district court to reinstate its prior order granting Petitioners summary judgment of invalidity. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as Represented by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri Food (“AAFC”) opposes the petition. Petitioners reply.

In re Calderon Lopez (Nonprecedential Order)

Ricardo J. Calderon Lopez filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against local government entities, seeking $5,000,000 for alleged injury sustained from their operation of a municipal bus. After the district court’s dismissal of the complaint in 2024 and three unsuccessful appeals, Mr. Calderon Lopez now petitions this court for a writ of mandamus to “vacate the lower courts denial of protected rights” and grant[] preliminary injunction [and] summary judgements.” ECF No. 2 at 2.

Dismissals

Rule 36 Judgment