This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions and one Rule 36 summary affirmance. Two of the opinions come in takings cases appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, one comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware, and one comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as a link to the summary affirmance.
Aljindi v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Dr. Ahmad Aljindi has filed several suits against the United States in which he asserted that the government has appropriated certain of his intellectual property related to artificial intelligence. As now relevant, he filed a 2021 suit in the United States Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) that, as interpreted, invoked the Claims Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b) to hear claims of copyright infringement by the government. The Claims Court dismissed the copyright-infringement claim for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted, and that dismissal became final. In 2025, Dr. Aljindi filed a new complaint in the Claims Court alleging uncompensated takings of property in his copyright. S. Appx. 1010.1 The Claims Court construed the complaint as invoking only the court’s jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, citing language in the complaint that affirmatively distinguished the suit under § 1498(b). Aljindi v. United States, No. 25-1288, at 4 (Fed. Cl. Sept. 25, 2025).2 The Claims Court then dismissed the 2025 action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, ruling that it had no Tucker Act jurisdiction to hear Dr. Aljindi’s “takings claims based on alleged copyright infringement” because such claims can be pursued only under § 1498(b) (as he had already done). S. Appx. 1004. Dr. Aljindi appeals. We affirm.
Mathai v. United States (Nonprecedential)
In 2020, Koshy Mathai began employment with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) as a physician specializing in pain management, and about two years later, he requested a retention bonus. VA denied the request. Dr. Mathai then filed this action in the United States Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court), alleging that VA’s denial of a retention bonus, combined with an organizational change regarding the Pain Management Section of the VA facility at which he worked, effected a taking of his medical services labor without compensation, in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Claims Court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim. Mathai v. United States, No. 24- 1954C, 2025 WL 2622178, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Sept. 11, 2025) (Decision). We now affirm.
Knoa Pharma LLC v. Accord Healthcare, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
In this patent case, appellants challenge the trial court’s finding of invalidity on grounds of obviousness. The focus of the litigation is the inventors’ claim to have developed a non-obvious product-by-process for an “abuse-deterrent” pill containing oxycodone hydrochloride, often known simply as “oxycodone.”
Oxycodone is a synthetic opioid, developed in 1916, in an effort to find a less addictive alternative to heroin and morphine for soldiers in World War I. At lower doses, opioids have analgesic (pain relieving) effects. At higher doses, they have euphoric effects, which can lead to abuse. J.A. 2471.
Following a bench trial, the trial court held all the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,304,908 (“the ’908 patent”) invalid on obviousness grounds. Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Accord Healthcare Inc., No. CV 22-913-WCB, 2024 WL 4120717, at *23 (D. Del. Sept. 9, 2024) (“Purdue”). One independent claim and several dependent claims were in dispute. The patent holder appeals as to only one dependent claim, claim 18. That claim incorporates a limitation set out in the claim from which it depends, claim 17, that the abuse-deterrent oxycodone pills be heated “in a coating pan” for a specified approximate minimum time period and at an approximate minimum temperature. ’908 patent 164:47–48.
The relevant prior art taught heating the pills in a tablet press, which cannot readily produce pills in large quantities. The trial court found that use of coating pans to heat the tablets would have been an obvious alternative, as coating pans can treat large numbers of tablets at a time, and were known devices already employed in the production of pharmaceutical tablets, albeit for other purposes.
Purdue timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). The trial court’s factual determinations are free from clear error. On de novo review of the trial court’s legal conclusion of obviousness, we affirm.
Vaughns v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Louis Vaughns appeals a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) that affirmed in part and remanded in part a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”). Because we lack jurisdiction over the issues Mr. Vaughns raises on appeal to us, we dismiss.