This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, one nonprecedential order, and one Rule 36 summary affirmance. The precedential opinion comes in a government contract and takings case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in another takings case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, and one comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as links to the dismissal and summary affirmance.
Kelly v. United States (Precedential)
Michael Kelly, and several entities under his control, sued the government for breach of contract and an unconstitutional Fifth Amendment taking after he and his banks lost significant assets during the 2008 financial crisis. The United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It reasoned that the complaint was filed after the six-year statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2501 expired and that the deadline was not subject to the tolling rule established in American Pipe & Construction Company v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974). We affirm and hold that 28 U.S.C. § 2501 is not subject to American Pipe tolling. In doing so, we recognize that a portion of our decision in Bright v. United States, 603 F.3d 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2010) has been implicitly overruled by California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. ANZ Securities, Inc., 582 U.S. 497 (2017).
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City Welfare v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City Welfare Benefit Plan and other self-insured group health plans sued the United States government alleging an illegal exaction in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The group health plans alleged that they were improperly required to contribute funds to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s Transitional Reinsurance Program, 42 U.S.C. § 18061, and later were illegally denied a refund of those contributions. The United States Court of Federal Claims consolidated the cases and dismissed all the complaints for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because their claims were time-barred under the applicable six-year statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2501. We affirm.
Woodway USA, Inc. v. Lifecore Fitness, LLC (Nonprecedential)
Woodway USA, Inc. (“Woodway”) appeals from a final inter partes review decision of the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”), which held claims 30–34, 37–39, 41, 45–49, 57, and 59 of U.S. Patent 10,561,884 (“the ’884 patent”) unpatentable as obvious. Woodway USA, Inc. v. LifeCore Fitness, LLC, IPR2023-00843 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 2024), J.A. 1–59 (“Decision”). For the following reasons, we affirm.