This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and three nonprecedential orders. One precedential opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the other comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a patent infringement case decided by a district court, and the other comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims. Two of the orders dismiss appeals. The remaining order is a sue sponte order recalling a mandate for the limited purpose of correcting a misstatement in the opinion. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the order recalling the mandate, along with links to the dismissals.
Hamill v. Collins (Precedential)
David Hamill appeals an order of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) (1) dismissing his petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus to compel the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to adjudicate his claim for a character of discharge determination, and (2) denying his request for class certification and class action (RCA). For the following reasons, we vacate the Veterans Court’s order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
112 Genesee Street, LLC v. United States (Precedential)
Over three hundred restaurants and businesses (Plaintiffs) brought this action against the United States (Government) seeking unpaid grant applications from the Restaurant Revitalization Fund (RRF). The United States Court of Federal Claims denied the Government’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of Tucker Act jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Arlton v. Aerovironmnent, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Paul and David Arlton (the “Arltons”) appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment, holding that AeroVironment, Inc. (“AeroVironment”) could not be held liable for the patent infringement alleged in the Arltons’ complaint as AeroVironment’s affirmative defense under 28 U.S.C. § 1498 covered all of its alleged infringing activities. AeroVironment cross-appeals the district court’s denial of its motion for attorneys’ fees. We affirm.
Kandel v. United States (Nonprecedential)
In this appeal from the Court of Federal Claims (“the Claims Court”), the appellants challenge the denial of their motion for attorney fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. 2412. The two issues raised on appeal are (1) whether EAJA authorizes an award of the fees and expenses of the class administrator in this class action, and (2) whether the government’s conduct—both prior to suit and in the litigation—was “substantially justified.” Because the Claims Court did not expressly address the issue of whether the government’s pre-suit conduct was substantially justified, we vacate the court’s order and direct that it address that issue; if the Claims Court finds against the government on that question, it will have to address whether EAJA authorizes an award of class administrator’s fees and expenses.
Lashify, Inc. v. International Trade Commission (Nonprecedential Order)
The court notes that the opinion issued in this case, Lashify, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 130 F.4th 948 (Fed. Cir. 2025), misstates one standard of review. At 130 F.4th at 964—page 27 of the court-issued version—the opinion states: “We review the Commission’s claim construction without deference and its underlying factual findings for clear error. See Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. 318, 332 (2015).” The statement and citation should be altered to state: “We review the Commission’s claim construction without deference and its underlying factual findings for substantial evidence. See Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 22 F.4th 1369, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2022).” That alteration changes nothing about the case-specific analysis set forth or result reached in the opinion.