This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, one nonprecedential opinion, and four nonprecedential orders. One of the precedential opinions comes in a patent infringement case; the other precedential opinion comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The nonprecedential opinion comes in another appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. One of the nonprecedential orders denies a petition for a writ of mandamus; another transfers a case. The other two dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and first two orders and links to dismissals.
US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google LLC (Precedential)
US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC appeals an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granting Google LLC’s (Google) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Conklin v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Precedential)
Dr. Jeremy Conklin, a physician and preference-eligible veteran, applied to be the Chief of Staff of a Veterans Health Administration (VHA) regional system, but was not selected. After unsuccessfully seeking relief from the Department of Labor, Dr. Conklin appealed his non-selection to the Merit Systems Protection Board under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 (VEOA), 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(a), (d). He alleged that the Department of Veterans Affairs (agency), of which VHA is a part, violated his veterans’ preference rights in evaluating his application for the Chief of Staff position—which was open only to physicians. The Board, relying on our decision in Scarnati v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 344 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2003), dismissed Dr. Conklin’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction because, under 38 U.S.C. §§ 7401 and 7403, VHA appointments of physicians are not subject to the requirements of the VEOA. Conklin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, No. SF-3330-23-0499-I-1, 2025 WL 326321, at *1–2 (M.S.P.B. Jan. 28, 2025) (Final Decision); Board Supplemental Appendix (S. Appx.) 1–3. We affirm.
McKinnis v. Department of the Interior (Nonprecedential)
Steven A. McKinnis petitions for review of a Merit Systems Protection Board decision denying corrective action in his whistleblower retaliation claim. We affirm.
In re Cai (Nonprecedential Order)
In the underlying Vaccine Act case, the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed Fei Cai’s motion to review the special master’s dismissal of her action after she failed to comply with the court’s page limits for such filings. Within 60 days of that order, she filed at this court a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the dismissal and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Morris v. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Nonprecedential)
Timothy W. Morris seeks judicial review of a Merit Systems Protection Board decision joining and dismissing three appeals from alleged personnel actions. Because Mr. Morris’s submissions indicated he raised discrimination claims before the Board and wishes to pursue those claims, we directed the parties to show cause whether this matter should be transferred. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration responds in favor of transfer. Mr. Morris has not responded.