This morning, the Federal Circuit released six nonprecedential opinions and one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Two of the opinions come in patent cases; two come in appeals of decisions of the Court of Federal Claims, one of which involves a pro se party; one comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board; and one comes in an appeal of a decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.
Indect USA Corp. v. Park Assist, LLC (Nonprecedential)
Park Assist LLC (“Park Assist”) is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 9,594,956, (the “’956 patent”) directed to methods of using camera-based technology for the management of parking spaces. In 2018, Indect USA Corp. (“Indect”) sued Park Assist, seeking declaratory judgments that it and its customers do not infringe the ’956 patent and that the patent’s claims are invalid. Indect further alleged that Park Assist engaged in unfair competition under the Lanham Act by threatening to sue Indect’s customers and bringing and maintaining suit against one such customer, the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (“Airport”). Park Assist responded with counterclaims alleging Indect directly infringed and induced others to infringe the ’956 patent.
Neither party obtained all the relief it sought in the district court. Following a jury trial and post-trial motions, the district court entered a declaratory judgment that Indect did not infringe the ’956 patent, but denied Indect’s requests for judgments of invalidity and unfair competition. Park Assist’s requests for declaratory judgments of infringement were denied. Both parties now appeal. While we agree with the district court on many of the disputed issues, and largely affirm, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.
Viasat, Inc. v. Western Digital Technologies, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
In this appeal from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the patentee, Viasat, Inc., (“Viasat”) challenges the Board’s decision that certain claims of Viasat’s patent-in-suit are unpatentable for obviousness. We hold that substantial evidence supports the Board’s obviousness decision, and we therefore affirm.
Haggart v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Denise L. Woodley appeals a decision of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims denying her requests for monetary relief on post-judgment interest, appellate expenses, and attorney’s fees. Haggart v. United States, 168 Fed. Cl. 148 (2023) (“CFC Decision”). For the following reasons, we affirm.
Joseph v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Angela A. Joseph appeals a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) dismissing her amended complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. We affirm.
Nathan v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
Robert Nathan appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) from a decision of the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) removing him from his position. The Board dismissed his appeal as a sanction for his conduct during the proceedings. We affirm.
OSC Solutions, Inc. v. Secretary of the Navy (Nonprecedential)
In 2022, pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101–7109, OSC Solutions, Inc. filed a certified claim seeking compensation from the United States Department of the Navy, Naval Supply Systems Command Fleet Logistics Center Norfolk (Navy) for an alleged breach of contract. The Navy’s contracting officer denied OSC’s claim, and OSC timely appealed to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board). In 2023, the Board denied the appeal, concluding that OSC did not have the asserted contract right to the compensation it sought. In re OSC Solutions, Inc., ASBCA No. 63294, 2023 WL 5199793 (July 20, 2023) (Final Decision). We affirm.