Late yesterday the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning the court released two nonprecedential opinions. One comes in an appeal from a judgment of the Eastern District of Texas in a patent case, while the other comes in an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims in a case involving a claim for damages under a treaty with the Ute Indians. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.
TQ Delta, LLC v. CommScope Holding Co. (Nonprecedential)
TQ Delta, LLC (“TQ Delta”) appeals from a final decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas denying its motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) or a new trial on the jury’s finding of noninfringement of U.S. Patent 8,090,008 (“the ’008 patent”). See J.A. 208–224 (“’008 Decision”). TQ Delta also appeals from the district court’s claim construction decision, which it argues affected the jury’s finding of invalidity of U.S. Patent 8,462,835 (“the ’835 patent”) and requires JMOL of no invalidity or a new trial. See TQ Delta, LLC v. CommScope Holding Co., Inc., No. 2:21-CV-309-JRG, 2022 WL 2071073 (E.D. Tex. June 8, 2022) (“Claim Construction Decision”). Finally, TQ Delta appeals from the district court’s final decision denying a new trial on damages. See J.A. 166–190, (“Damages Decision”). For the following reasons, we affirm.
Jones v. United States (Nonprecedential)
In April 2007, Todd Murray, a member of the Ute Indian Tribe, died from a gunshot to his head on the Uintah and Ouray Reservation (Reservation). Since then, Mr. Murray’s parents, Ms. Debra Jones and Mr. Arden C. Post (collectively, the Murray Family), have pressed cases arising from the incident. In the present case, the Murray Family seeks damages from the United States (government) under Article VI of the 1868 Treaty with the Ute Indians, alleging that a particular local police officer shot Mr. Murray. Treaty with the Ute, Mar. 2, 1868, 15 Stat. 619, 620. The case has been to this court twice before, see Jones v. United States, 846 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Jones II); Jones v. United States, No. 2020-2182, 2022 WL 473032 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 16, 2022) (Jones V), and has come to focus on whether Mr. Murray shot himself (as the government contends) or the identified police officer shot him (as the Murray Family contends).
In our 2022 ruling, we concluded that the government must be appropriately sanctioned for spoliating evidence by its (court-approved) destruction of one of the two relevant handguns on the scene—the Hi-Point handgun, found near Mr. Murray’s body—and we remanded to the United States Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) to fashion an appropriate sanction for that spoliation; and we also remanded for the Claims Court to decide whether the government had spoliated evidence by not taking into custody the other relevant handgun, a Glock possessed by the identified local police officer at the scene, or that officer’s clothing. Jones V, at *9, 11. On remand, the Claims Court fashioned a sanction relating to the Hi-Point and held that no spoliation occurred with regard to the Glock or clothing. Jones v. United States, No. 13-227, 2023 WL 2681819 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 29, 2023) (Jones VI). The Claims Court then held a trial, and after the trial, the court found in favor of the government on the liability question, finding that the Murray Family failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the police officer shot Mr. Murray. Jones v. United States, 171 Fed. Cl. 576 (2024) (Jones VII). The Murray Family appeals. We now affirm.