This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, three nonprecedential opinions, and two nonprecedential orders. One of the precedential opinions comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims; the other comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Two of the nonprecedential opinions come in patent infringement cases decided by district courts; the other comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Both orders dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.
Syneren Technologies Corp. v. United States (Precedential)
CAN Softtech, Inc. appeals the decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims that denied its bid protest of awards for Information Technology services for the United States Department of Commerce. Because the agency was permitted to take unilateral corrective action in a bid protest by canceling the awards and issuing new awards, we affirm.
Cash v. Collins (Precedential)
Mr. Robert L. Cash, a U.S. Navy veteran, appeals from a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) affirming the denial of his service-connected benefits claim. Cash v. McDonough, No. 22- 7371, 2024 WL 678196, at *1 (Vet. App. Feb. 20, 2024) (Decision). In denying Mr. Cash’s claim, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) refused to consider evidence Mr. Cash had previously submitted to the Board in February 2022 in an appeal for a different claim, even though Mr. Cash clearly referred to his prior evidentiary submission in an addendum to his Notice of Disagreement (NOD) for his current claim. In the Board’s view, the Board needed to receive a copy of that evidence again for it to be deemed properly “submitted” for the Board’s consideration in Mr. Cash’s current claim. See 38 U.S.C. § 7113(c)(2). Because we determine that Mr. Cash satisfied the statutory evidentiary submission requirement by clearly and timely referring to his prior submission to the Board in his Notice of Disagreement (NOD) addendum, we reverse.
Q Technologies, Inc. v. Walmart, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Q Technologies, Inc. (“Q Tech”) appeals from a final decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas holding that, as a matter of law, all asserted claims of U.S. Patents 9,635,108 (“the ’108 patent”), 10,567,473 (“the ’473 patent”), and 10,594,774 (“the ’774 patent”) are ineligible and hence invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Q Techs., Inc. v. Walmart, Inc., No. 6:21-CV-00779-ADA, 2024 WL 1146150 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 6, 2024) (“Decision”). For the following reasons, we affirm.
Little Giant Ladder Systems, LLC v. Tricam Industries, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Little Giant Ladder Systems, LLC (Little Giant) appeals a decision of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granting summary judgment of noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,767,416 (’416 patent) in favor of Tricam Industries, Inc. (Tricam). See Little Giant Ladder Sys., LLC v. Tricam Indus., Inc., No. 20-CV-2497 (KMM/ECW), 2024 WL 1332027 (D. Minn. Mar. 28, 2024), vacated in part (Apr. 12, 2024), modified and superseded by No. 20-CV-2497 (KMM/ECW), 2024 WL 3014862 (D. Minn. June 14, 2024) (D. Minn. June 14, 2024) (Summary Judgment Order). The district court determined that “the accused products do not literally infringe the ‘cavity’ limitation and prosecution history estoppel bars Little Giant from relying on the doctrine of equivalents.” Id. at *1. For the reasons below, we affirm.
Robinson v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
Taft Robinson petitions for review of the July 11, 2025 decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”), S.A. 1–13, dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. For the following reasons, we affirm.