This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal, and two Rule 36 Judgments. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Southern District of Florida. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in another patent case appealed from from the Southern District of New York, one addresses a petition for review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, one comes in an appeal from a decision of the Court of Federal Claims, and one comes from a case appealed from the Court of International Trade. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as links to the dismissal and the Rule 36 judgments.
mCom IP, LLC v. City National Bank of Florida (Precedential)
mCom IP, LLC, is the assignee of U.S. Patent No. 8,862,508, which claims a “unified electronic banking system” and a method of constructing a “unified electronic banking environment.” In 2023, the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), in an inter partes review (IPR) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–19, held unpatentable all but four claims of the ’508 patent, slating them for cancellation. Thereafter, mCom brought the present action against City National Bank of Florida in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging infringement of the remaining four claims (2, 8, 14, and 17). The district court dismissed mCom’s complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim, ruling that the asserted claims were invalid on the same obviousness grounds asserted in the IPR against the other claims of the ’508 patent and that mCom had not adequately pleaded infringement. mCom IP, LLC v. City National Bank of Florida, No. 1:23-cv-23427, 2024 WL 2892007, at *2–5 (S.D. Fla. June 10, 2024) (Dismissal). The court subsequently awarded attorneys’ fees and costs to City National, relying on the exceptional-case authority of 35 U.S.C. § 285 for an award against mCom and on the attorney-sanction authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for a separate award against mCom’s counsel, Victoria Brieant. mCom IP, LLC v. City National Bank of Florida, No. 1:23- cv-23427, 2025 WL 939224, at *1–2 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 28, 2025) (Fees Ruling).
mCom and Ms. Brieant challenge the dismissal, the § 285 award, and the § 1927 sanction. (Because they have filed a single brief, we refer to both of them as “mCom.”) We affirm the dismissal because mCom advances no meritorious challenge to the invalidity ground for that dismissal. We reverse the § 285 award and § 1927 sanction because the grounds presented to the district court were insufficient to support a conclusion that the case was exceptional as required by § 285 or that mCom’s counsel acted with the bad faith required by § 1927.
mCom IP, LLC v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. (Nonprecedential)
In 2023, mCom IP, LLC, which owns U.S. Patent No. 8,862,508, brought the present action against HSBC Bank USA, N.A., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging HSBC’s infringement of the ’508 patent—as now relevant, claim 17 of that patent. Around the same time, mCom asserted claim 17 and other claims of the same patent against another financial institution in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Both complaints were dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim—in the present case because there was no plausible allegation of infringement, and in the Florida case for noninfringement and for invalidity (including of claim 17). See mCom IP, LLC v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., No. 1:23-cv-8801, 2024 WL 1704506, at *2–5 (Dismissal). mCom appealed each dismissal as to a single common asserted claim, claim 17. We treated the appeals as companions. Today, in the companion appeal, we affirm the holding that claim 17 is invalid. That invalidity ruling has preclusive effect here, preventing mCom from asserting claim 17 in this appeal. For that reason, and because mCom has not shown that the district court erred in dismissing its complaint with prejudice, we affirm.
Walker v. Department of Veterans Affairs (Nonprecedential)
Daphnee Walker, who proceeds pro se, petitions for review of a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which denied Ms. Walker’s petition for enforcement. Because the Board’s final decision is not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, contrary to law, or unsupported by substantial evidence, we affirm.
Monbo v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Dee Monbo appeals the United States Court of Federal Claims’ order (1) dismissing her bid protest complaint under Court of Federal Claims Rules 41(b), 12(b)(1), and 12(b)(6); (2) denying her motion to amend her complaint; and (3) denying her motions to stay the proceeding. For the reasons explained below, we affirm.
Seneca Foods Corp. v. United States (Nonprecedential)
During 2020 and 2021, Seneca Foods Corp. ordered tinfree steel from Japan and China and prime electrolytic tinplate from China and Turkey. The ordered products came within the 25-percent ad valorem tariff imposed on certain steel articles starting in 2018 by Presidential Proclamation 9705, issued under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, Pub. L. No. 87-794, 76 Stat. 872, 877, codified as amended at 19 U.S.C. § 1862. See Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United States, 83 Fed. Reg. 11,625, 11,625–28 (Mar. 15, 2018) (Proclamation 9705). The goal was to increase use of domestic capacity and ensure longterm viability of the domestic steel industry. Proclamation 9705, at 11,625. The proclamation provided, however, that the Secretary of Commerce could grant exclusions from the tariffs based on inadequate domestic availability—specifically, “for any steel article determined not to be produced in the United States in a sufficient and reasonably available amount or of a satisfactory quality,” but “only after a request for exclusion is made by a directly affected party located in the United States.” Id. at 11,627. This case involves Seneca’s challenge to denials of eight exclusion requests.