Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in an appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions, two nonprecedential orders, and an errata. One of the opinions comes in another appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board; the other comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Both orders deny petitions for writs of mandamus. One of the petitions sought to order the Merit Systems Protection Board to order discovery and sanction an agency. The other petition sought to order the Patent and Trademark Office to vacate a denial of its petition for inter partes review. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders along with a link to the errata.
Kammunkun v. Department of Defense (Nonprecedential)
Diana Z. Kammunkun petitions for review of the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) affirming the Department of Defense’s decision to remove her from employment. J.A. 1–19. We affirm.
Harris v. Department of Veterans Affairs (Nonprecedential)
Robin Jean Harris petitions from a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) denying her request for corrective action under the Whistleblower Protection Act (“WPA”). Harris v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., No. 1221-22-0150-W-1, 2024 MSPB LEXIS 1453 (Mar. 19, 2024) (adopting the initial decision, Harris v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., No. 1221-22-0150-W-1, 2022 MSPB LEXIS 3365 (Sep. 6, 2022) (“Decision”), as the Board’s final decision). For the reasons below, we affirm.
Morgan v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Charles Morgan appeals a final decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) finding no clear and unmistakable error (“CUE”) in a 1986 Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) decision denying service connection for his musculoskeletal pain. Morgan v. McDonough, No. 23-2763, 2024 WL 2795214 (Vet. App. May 31, 2024) (“Decision”). For the reasons below, we affirm in part and dismiss in part.
In re Jackson (Nonprecedential Order)
Richard Cornelius Jackson petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the Merit Systems Protection Board to, inter alia, order discovery and sanction the employing agency in his pending case asserting rights under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act.
In re Google LLC (Nonprecedential Order)
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) denied Google LLC’s petitions for inter partes review of VirtaMove, Corp.’s patent, reasoning the “patent[] ha[s] been in force for more than 14 years, creating strong settled expectations” and Google had not shown review would be an appropriate use of PTO resources. Appx2. Google now seeks a writ of mandamus directing the PTO to vacate that decision and to reconsider its petitions for IPR without consideration of those “settled expectations.” The Director of the PTO and VirtaMove oppose the petition.