This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, three nonprecedential opinions, five nonprecedential orders, and one Rule 36 summary affirmance. One of the precedential opinions comes in a case involving correction of military records appealed from the Court of Federal Claims; the other is a case involving tariffs appealed from the Court of International Trade. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a patent case appealed form the District of Wyoming, one comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and one comes in a patent case appealed form the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Two nonprecedential orders come in a cases appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, one transfers an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and two dismiss petitions. Here are the introductions to the opinions and substantive orders along with links to the summary affirmance and dismissals.
Qoye v. United States (Precedential)
Veteran Yishai Qoye challenges a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Federal Claims Court”) upholding a Board for Correction of Naval Records (“Board”) denial of military disability retirement, records correction, and the return of a reenlistment bonus. We determine that the Federal Claims Court’s affirmance of the Board’s adjudication of Mr. Qoye’s eligibility for medical disability retirement was erroneous because it failed to address the requisite United States Secretary of the Navy Instruction (“SECNAVINST”) 1850.4E § 3304 factors. We therefore vacate the Federal Claims Court’s decision and remand to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Ildico Inc. v. United States (Precedential)
This is a tariff case about watches. Ildico Inc. appeals from a decision of the United States Court of International Trade (“the Trade Court”) holding that ten models of wrist watches imported from Switzerland were properly classified under heading 9102 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Ildico Inc. v. United States, No. 18-00136, 2024 WL 4648084 (Ct. Int’l Trade Nov. 1, 2024) (“Trade Court Decision”); Appellant’s Br. 2. Ildico argues that the watches should have been classified under HTSUS heading 9101, which carries lower duty rates than heading 9102. The cases of the watches at issue are made mostly of gold, but the cases include large transparent crystal windows on the backs of the watches that allow for viewing the internal watch components from the rear. We agree with the Trade Court that because the windows on the backs of the subject watches are made of synthetic sapphire crystal, the watch cases are not made “wholly of precious metal,” and therefore, given the arguments made and preserved by Ildico, the watches are not eligible for classification under heading 9101.
Schmeisser GMBH v. AC-Unity D.O.O. (Nonprecedential)
Schmeisser GmbH (Schmeisser) appeals orders of the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming (1) construing certain distance-related claim terms in U.S. Patent No. 10,866,045 as indefinite, (2) granting partial summary judgment of invalidity and noninfringement in favor of ACUnity d.o.o. (AC-Unity), and (3) dissolving a preliminary injunction previously entered by the court against ACUnity. We reverse-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
James v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
David James is a veteran. S.A.1. On November 3, 2023, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals issued a decision denying James’s request for an increased rating for his service-connected asthma and total disability based on individual employability. S.A. 8–17. On December 19, 2024, James filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“the Veterans Court”). S.A. 6. On May 15, 2025, the Veterans Court, in a single-judge decision, dismissed the appeal because James’s notice of appeal was untimely filed and he had not established that he was entitled to equitable tolling. S.A. 1–4. On June 6, 2025, the Veterans Court entered judgment. S.A. 5. On June 16, the Veterans Court received James’s motion for a three-judge panel decision. S.A. 7. And on June 25, 2025, James filed his notice of appeal with this court. S.A. 7. The Veterans Court is yet to rule on the motion for a three-judge panel decision. S.A. 7.
G+ Communications, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. (Nonprecedential)
G+ Communications, LLC (“G+”) appeals from an inter partes review (“IPR”) final written decision by the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) determining that claims 1–5, 7–9, 14, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,736,130 (“the ’130 patent”) are unpatentable. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Sanders v. United States (Nonprecedential Order)
Quordalis V. Sanders, who was then and remains incarcerated, filed a complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims, alleging the Clerk of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin violated his rights in connection with handling his filings. The Court of Federal Claims held that Mr. Sanders was ineligible for in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and later dismissed his complaint when he failed to pay the docketing fee. Mr. Sanders appeals and seeks leave to proceed IFP on appeal.
Yahne v. United States (Nonprecedential Order)
The United States moves to summarily affirm the judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing Scott Gene Yahne’s complaint. Mr. Yahne submits a notice requesting relief on the merits. We now grant the United States’s motion.
Taylor v. People of the Venue of the Foreign United States (Nonprecedential Order)
Eric Emanuel Taylor filed this suit against “The People Of The Venue Of The Foreign United States of America” in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. He invoked that court’s jurisdiction under the general federal jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1330. And he sought “80 trillion dollars” for the “government’s perpetration of tort” and violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Compl. at 1, 24. The district court dismissed the complaint.