This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, and one Rule 36 summary affirmance. The precedential opinion comes in a trade secret case appealed from the Eastern District of Michigan. Two of the nonprecedential opinions come in cases involving the Merit Systems Protection Board, one comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Virginia, and the other comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as a link to the summary affirmance.
Versata Software, LLC v. Ford Motor Co. (Precedential)
Versata Software, LLC fka Trilogy Software, Inc.; Versata Development Group, Inc.; and Trilogy, LLC appeal a decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on damages for trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract. For the reasons below, we vacate the district court’s judgment on trade secret damages and remand for a new trial with instructions for the district court to consider two damages models it previously rejected. With respect to the breach of contract damages, we reverse the district court’s judgment and reinstate the jury award. Lastly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Ford’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on liability for trade secret misappropriation.
Bell v. Office of Personnel Management (Nonprecedential)
Vanna E. Bell petitions for review of a Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) decision affirming an Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) reconsideration decision that found her ineligible for a survivor annuity under the Civil Service Retirement System (“CSRS”). We affirm.
Guymon v. Squires (Nonprecedential)
John Lewis Guymon Jr. appeals a decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissing his amended complaint with prejudice. For the reasons below, we affirm.
Idahosa v. Department of the Army (Nonprecedential)
Robert O. Idahosa served as an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) specialist with the Department of the Army (agency) until 2018, when the agency removed him from his position. Mr. Idahosa sought relief from the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board), alleging that the agency took several adverse personnel actions against him, including his removal, in retaliation for his whistleblowing activities and disclosures protected under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)–(9). The Board, while agreeing that Mr. Idahosa engaged in protected whistleblower activity, denied him relief for want of a prima facie case of retaliation, determining that the activity was not a factor contributing to the challenged personnel actions. See Idahosa v. Department of the Army, No. AT-1221-19-0535-W-1, 2024 WL 3373092 (M.S.P.B. July 10, 2024) (Final Decision).
Mr. Idahosa petitioned this court for review. But his petition was not received until several months after the 60- day statutory filing period. We now dismiss his petition as untimely. We also conclude that Mr. Idahosa has not shown error in the Board’s determination of no whistleblower retaliation, so we would affirm the Board if we were not dismissing the petition.
Wright v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Rodney Wright appeals a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims that dismissed his appeal of a Board of Veterans’ Appeals remand order for lack of jurisdiction. Because we lack jurisdiction to consider Mr. Wright’s arguments, we dismiss.