This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and a nonprecedential order. One of the opinions comes in a case involving claims of patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation; the other comes in an appeal of a decision by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The order remands a patent case back to a district court based on a district court’s indication it would vacate its patent ineligibility determinations. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the order.
Applied Predictive Technologies, Inc. v. MarketDial, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Applied Predictive Technologies, Inc. (“APT”) appeals a decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah granting summary judgment in favor of MarketDial, Inc. (“MarketDial”), John M. Stoddard, and Morgan Davis (collectively, “Appellees”) regarding APT’s trade-secret misappropriation claims. J.A. 1–39 (filed under seal). APT also appeals the district court’s decision dismissing its breach-of-contract claim against Mr. Stoddard. Applied Predictive Techs., Inc. v. MarketDial, Inc., 598 F. Supp. 3d 1264 (D. Utah 2022) (“Contract Decision”). For the reasons below, we affirm.
Calderon v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Claimant-Appellant, Joseph L. Calderon, (“Appellant” or “Mr. Calderon”) appeals the Order of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“CAVC” or “Veterans Court”). The CAVC dismissed Mr. Calderon’s appeal for untimeliness because his Notice of Appeal (“NOA”) was filed after the deadline. In doing so, the CAVC denied Mr. Calderon equitable tolling relief. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7292. We hold that the CAVC did not legally err in determining that equitable tolling does not apply in Mr. Calderon’s appeal, and the CAVC correctly granted the Respondent-Appellee’s (“the Secretary’s”) Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, we affirm.
Vroom, Inc. v. Sidekick Technology, LLC (Nonprecedential Order)
The parties filed a motion to stay these appeals while they worked to effectuate settlement and asked the district court for an indicative ruling that it would vacate its prior patent-ineligibility decisions if this court remanded. ECF No. 57. Now that the district court has so indicated, the parties jointly move to remand these appeals for it to do so. ECF No. 60.