Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing a petition. This morning the court released two precedential opinions and one nonprecedential opinion. One of the precedential opinions comes in a patent case appealed from the Western District of Washington, and the other comes in a whistleblower case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The nonprecedential opinion comes in response to a petition for review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as a link to the dismissal.
Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp. (Precedential)
Valve Corporation appeals from a supplemental partial judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The district court ruled that Valve was estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from asserting two invalidity grounds, which had not been included in a 2016 petition for inter partes review, against several claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,641,525. Because we conclude that the district court relied on insufficient evidence to estop one ground, and because the district court failed to adequately account for hindsight bias in estopping the other ground, we reverse and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Jacobson v. United States (Precedential)
Elizabeth Jacobson filed a whistleblower declaration with the U.S. Attorney General under the Financial Institutions Anti-Fraud Enforcement Act of 1990 (“FIAFEA”) alleging fraud on the part of Wells Fargo Bank. The U.S. Department of Justice, after investigating Ms. Jacobson’s declaration, informed her that her declaration was deficient and invalid. Ms. Jacobson appealed to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, which dismissed her complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court based the dismissal on FIAFEA’s non-reviewability provision. Ms. Jacobson asserts on appeal that the Court of Federal Claims erred by not first reviewing whether FIAFEA is money-mandating prior to dismissing her complaint for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to review the Attorney General’s FIAFEA related actions.
Harrow v. Department of Defense (Nonprecedential)
Stuart Harrow petitions for review of a decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board affirming his six-day furlough from his civilian position with the Department of Defense. The Board issued a final decision in 2022, but we dismissed Mr. Harrow’s appeal to this court for lack of jurisdiction because he missed the 60-day deadline to appeal. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1). The Supreme Court later held the filing deadline in section 7703(b)(1) to be non-jurisdictional and remanded the case to this court for further proceedings. Harrow v. Dep’t of Def., 601 U.S. 480, 489 (2024). In this remand proceeding, we assume that Mr. Harrow is entitled to equitable tolling of the filing deadline, and we address the merits of his claim. On the merits, Mr. Harrow fails to persuade us that the Board committed error in upholding the agency’s furlough decision.