Late Friday, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in an en banc case addressing federal employment law. Chief Judge Moore authored the majority opinion, which was joined by Judges Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Taranto, Chen, and Hughes. Notably, Judge Stoll authored a dissenting opinion that was joined by Judges Reyna, Cunningham, and Stark. This morning, the court released four nonprecedential opinions and three nonprecedential orders. One nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent infringement case appealed from the District of Delaware, another comes in a government contract case, another in an appeal of a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, and the last one comes in a pro se challenge to a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Two of the orders transfer cases, while the third order denies a petition in a veterans case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.
Lesko v. United States (Precedential En Banc Opinion)
Jillian Lesko appeals a decision of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing all five counts in her Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. We granted en banc review sua sponte to address a narrow issue concerning Count II—is the overtime writing requirement in 5 C.F.R. § 550.111(c) a valid exercise of the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) rulemaking authority in light of the statutory requirement in 5 U.S.C. § 5542(a) that the Government pay overtime “officially ordered or approved”? We conclude the writing requirement is valid and affirm the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of Count II. We refer the remainder of the appeal back to the panel for resolution.
STOLL, Circuit Judge, dissenting, with whom Circuit Judges REYNA, CUNNINGHAM, and STARK join.
There is no dispute that the plain meaning of “officially ordered or approved” in the overtime statute is not limited to written orders or approvals. Majority Op. 11. Nonetheless, the majority determines that, between the term “officially ordered or approved” in 5 U.S.C. § 5542(a) and the grant of authority to OPM to “prescribe regulations[] . . . necessary for the administration of this subchapter” in 5 U.S.C. § 5548(a), Congress delegated to OPM “discretionary authority to determine the formalities required to administer the authorization process for overtime.” Majority Op. 12–13. We see no such delegation in the statutory language. Under Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), we would hold that the best meaning of the statutory phrase “hours of work officially ordered or approved in excess of 40 hours in an administrative workweek” does not require a writing.
C. R. Bard, Inc. v. Angiodynamics, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
This case comes back to us after a retrial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in which a jury found that AngioDynamics, Inc. (“AngioDynamics”) willfully infringed asserted claims of Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.’s (“Bard’s”) U.S. Patents 8,475,417 (“the ’417 patent”), 8,545,460 (“the ’460 patent”), and 8,805,478 (“the ’478 patent”), and that the asserted claims were not invalid. Our prior decision had determined that the district court earlier had erred in determining that the asserted claims of those patents were ineligible for patent as being solely directed to printed matter. C R Bard Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., 979 F.3d 1372, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2020). It left open the issue of anticipation, determining that there was a factual dispute and vacating the district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) that the asserted claims were anticipated. Id. at 1384–85. But the district court on remand did not address our opinion apart from providing cursory background information, and simply granted AngioDynamics’ post-trial motion for JMOL that the asserted claims were invalid as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter, indefinite, and anticipated. CR Bard Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., 675 F. Supp. 3d 462, 467–68 (D. Del. 2023) (“Decision”). Because we conclude that the district court did not err in granting JMOL on the ground of anticipation, we affirm.
ASG Solutions Corp. v. United States (Nonprecedential)
This case arises from a contract between a private contractor and the United States Department of the Navy (“Navy”). The contractor complains that the Navy improperly terminated the contract for default and raises a number of claims of improper conduct by the Navy that led to that termination.
The contractor sought review of the termination in the Court of Federal Claims (“the Claims Court”), which granted summary judgment for the government in a thorough opinion that addressed each of the claims raised by the contractor. See ASG Sols. Corp. v. United States, 170 Fed. Cl. 485 (2024). We agree with the Claims Court’s analysis and accordingly affirm.
In re Matthew Amoss (Nonprecedential)
Matthew Amoss appeals a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) final decision affirming the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s refusal to register the mark “BASIN BEVERAGE CO.” (Serial No. 90/703,327) (“applicant’s mark”) on the ground that it is likely to cause confusion under § 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d). In re Matthew Amoss, No. 90703327 (T.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2024) (“Decision”), J.A. 1– 23. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Kulkarni v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
Dr. Sayali Kulkarni and her husband, Dr. Abhijit Kulkarni, (collectively, the Kulkarnis) petition for review of their respective final orders by the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board), which dismissed their Individual Right of Action (IRA) appeals for lack of jurisdiction. See Kulkarni v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., No. DE-1221-19-0157-W-1, 2024 WL 365145 (M.S.P.B. Jan. 30, 2024) (Final Order) (SAppx 1–19); Kulkarni v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., No. DE1221-19-0157-W-1, 2019 WL 1516850 (M.S.P.B. Apr. 4, 2019) (Initial Decision) (SAppx 21–37).3 For the following reasons, we affirm.
In re Briscoe (Nonprecedential Order)
On October 27, 2025, following a show-cause order, the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island dismissed Akkima Dannielle Briscoe’s complaint, which sought, among other relief, $14,000 from state and federal officials. On November 14, 2025, this court received a filing from Ms. Briscoe styled as a petition for a writ of mandamus, seeking relief in that matter. We transfer.
Carley v. Saalwaechter, Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
On August 25, 2025, the district court entered final judgment dismissing Ms. Carley’s suit relating to a foreclosure on her home. On September 9, 2025, Ms. Carley filed a still-pending motion “[p]ursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144,” Dkt. No. 63 at 1, arguing, inter alia, that the dismissal was improper, and, on September 25, 2025, she filed a notice of appeal directed to this court. In response to this court’s October 16, 2025 order directing the parties to address our jurisdiction, appellees argue for dismissal or transfer to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Nannette Carley has not filed a response.
In re Deflanders (Nonprecedential Order)
Before the court are Darren L. DeFlanders’s petition for writ of mandamus and motions for relief in connection with claims for service-connected disability benefits.