Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders dismissing petitions. This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. One of the precedential opinions comes in a response to a petition seeking to have the en banc court reconsider a panel’s review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Today’s nonprecedential order explains that the en banc court granted rehearing in response to the petition and the withdrew and replaced the panel’s opinion with a modified opinion that includes one part that is joined by all of the active judges that participated in the vote on rehearing. The other precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, and the other comes in a patent case appealed from the Western District of Pennsylvania. Here are the introductions to the opinions and today’s order as well as links to the dismissals.
Nielsen Co. (US) v. TVision Insights, Inc. (Precedential)
TVision Insights, Inc. (“TVision”) petitioned for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 11,470,243 (“’243 patent”), owned by The Nielsen Company (US), LLC (“Nielsen”). TVision relied on a publication authored by Ying-li Tian (“Tian”) as a prior-art reference. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) determined each challenged claim to be unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over prior art combinations that included Tian. Nielsen appeals, arguing that the Board erred in concluding that Tian was analogous art and in finding that Tian’s teachings rendered obvious the disputed claims. We affirm.
Brimer v. Navy (Precedential)
David S. Brimer petitions for rehearing en banc of the panel decision denying his request for corrective action under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998. Relying on our precedent in Kerner v. Department of the Interior, 778 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the panel held that Mr. Brimer was not entitled to any corrective action based on a denial of an opportunity to compete under 5 U.S.C. § 3304(f)(1) because Mr. Brimer was already a federal employee, and § 3304(f) is inapplicable to veterans who are already employed by the federal government.
In this opinion, the en banc court considers whether § 3304(f)(1) covers current federal employees along with those seeking initial federal appointments in Part I. The panel then considers application of this rule in this case in Part II. Because we hold that under § 3304(f)(1) an agency cannot rely on a veteran’s status as a current federal employee to deny him or her the right to compete, we vacate the Board’s decision and remand for the Board to reconsider whether Mr. Brimer was deprived of an opportunity to compete under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 (VEOA).
Cummins v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Plaintiffs in this class action case are current or retired federal employees who have lived and worked in non-foreign areas outside the contiguous United States. Plaintiffs asserted claims against the United States for underpayment of salary and retirement benefits. The United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed their claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. For the reasons below, we affirm.
Jacki Easlick, LLC v. CJ Emerald (Nonprecedential)
Jacki Easlick, LLC and JE Corporate LLC (collectively, “Jacki Easlick”) appeal two decisions of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denying their motions for a preliminary injunction and reconsideration of the denial of the motion for preliminary injunction. For the reasons below, we affirm.
Brimer v. Department of the Navy (Nonprecedential Order)
David Scott Brimer filed a petition for rehearing en banc. A response to the petition was invited by the court and filed by the Department of the Navy. The petition was referred to the circuit judges who are in regular active service. The court conducted a poll on request, and a majority of the judges who are in regular active service voted for en banc consideration.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The petition for rehearing en banc is granted to the extent discussed in Part I of the modified opinion and judgment accompanying this order.
(2) The precedential opinion and judgment issued December 17, 2025, are withdrawn and replaced with the modified opinion and judgment.