Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order vacating a judgment and remanding a case in light of the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case. This morning, the court issued three precedential opinions, four nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. One of the precedential opinions comes in a correction of military records case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims; one comes in a copyright case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims; and one comes in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. Of the nonprecedential opinions, ones comes in response to a petition to review a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board; one comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; and two come in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Today’s order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and yesterday’s order as well as a link to the dismissal.
Bee v. United States (Precedential)
William Olas Bee appeals from a final decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims, which sustained the Board for Correction of Naval Records’ denial of Mr. Bee’s petition for correction of his military record to reflect a medical disability retirement. We hold that the Board applied the wrong legal standard for assessing fitness and failed to apply liberal consideration to Mr. Bee’s evidence of his unfitness for duty. We thus vacate the Federal Claims Court’s decision and remand to the Board for further proceedings.
4DD Holdings, LLC v. United States (Precedential)
4DD Holdings, LLC, and T4 Data Group, LLC, appeal from the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims awarding them $12,683,065.86 for the government’s infringement of their copyrighted software TETRA®. Because the law does not compel deferring to the terms set out in a license agreement to assess copyright infringement damages, we affirm the trial court’s decision to assess damages via a hypothetical negotiation. However, because the trial court adopted a legally impermissible view of the book of wisdom and erred by assessing non-compensatory damages against the government, we vacate-in-part and remand for further proceedings.
KG Dongbu Steel Co. v. United States (Precedential)
Appellant Nucor Corporation appeals from a final judgment of the United States Court of International Trade. The trial court sustained the Department of Commerce’s determination, submitted under protest and after two remands, that three debt-to-equity conversions performed by Appellee Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. conferred no countervailable benefit. For the reasons explained below, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand with instructions for the trial court to reinstate Commerce’s original determinations.
Lynn v. Department of Veterans Affairs (Nonprecedential)
Daniel Lynn, appearing pro se, petitions for review of a final decision from the Merit Systems and Protection Board (Board) denying Mr. Lynn’s petition for enforcement of his settlement agreement (Agreement) with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Lynn v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., No. SF-0714-17-0702-C-1, 2025 WL 2170239 (M.S.P.B. July 21, 2025) (Decision) (SAppx 1–29). Because the Agreement unambiguously states that the settlement payment must be paid to Mr. Lynn (and not his designated representative), we affirm.
Clark v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Ms. Eula Clark, widow of Navy veteran Mr. Johnnie H. Clark, appeals a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) affirming a Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) denial of an earlier effective date for residuals of a head injury. Clark v. Collins, No. 24-2150, 2025 WL 448797, at *1 (Vet. App. Feb. 10, 2025) (Decision). Because the Veterans Court’s decision was an application of law to fact, we must dismiss.
Slingshot Printing LLC v. Canon U.S.A., Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Slingshot Printing LLC (Slingshot) appeals two final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) finding claims 1–17 of U.S. Patent No. 7,484,823 (’823 patent) and claims 1–15 of U.S. Patent No. 7,594,708 (’708 patent) unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Canon U.S.A., Inc. v. Slingshot Printing LLC, No. IPR2023-00312, 2024 WL 3678426 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 2024) (’823 Patent Decision); Canon U.S.A., Inc. v. Slingshot Printing LLC, No. IPR2023-00313, 2024 WL 3585542 (P.T.A.B. July 30, 2024) (’708 Patent Decision). We affirm.
Slingshot Printing LLC v. Canon U.S.A., Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Slingshot Printing LLC (Slingshot) appeals the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) finding claims 1–6 and 8–20 of U.S. Patent No. 7,290,864 (’864 patent) unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Canon U.S.A., Inc v. Slingshot Printing LLC, No. IPR2023-00309, 2024 WL 3608171 (P.T.A.B. July 31, 2024) (Decision). We affirm.
Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
Upon consideration of the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., et al. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., et al., No. 24-889,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The mandate of this court that issued October 24, 2024, is recalled, the appeal is reinstated, and this court’s June 25, 2024, opinion and judgment are vacated. We further remand this case to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision.