Late Friday afternoon, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released two precedential opinions and six nonprecedential opinions. Both precedential opinions come in patent cases, one appealed from the Eastern District of Texas and one appealed from the District of Delaware. As for the nonprecedential opinions, two come in veterans cases appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; two come in cases appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, which dismissed the cases for lack of jurisdiction; one comes in a patent case appealed from the Western District of Texas; and one comes in a federal employment case. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as a link to the dismissal.
NCS Multistage Inc. v. Nine Energy Service, Inc. (Precedential)
Nine Energy Service, Inc. (“Nine”) appeals the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas’s amended final judgment ordering that (1) Nine had directly infringed claims 28 and 29 of U.S. Patent No. 10,465,445 (the “’445 patent”); (2) Nine had induced infringement of claims 36, 39, 50–52, and 55–57 of the ’445 patent; (3) claims 28, 29, 36, 39, 50–52, and 55–57 (the “asserted claims”) of the ’445 patent were not invalid; and (4) NCS Multistage Inc. and NCS Multistage LLC (collectively, “NCS”) were entitled to damages. See J.A. 1–2. For the reasons below, we vacate and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
TexasLDPC Inc. v. Broadcom Inc. (Precedential)
Only a “patentee” may bring a civil action for patent infringement. 35 U.S.C. § 281. This case calls on us to again undertake the oftentimes complicated task of determining whether a license agreement conveyed a sufficient ownership interest to the licensee such that the agreement is tantamount to an assignment, thereby granting the licensee the right to maintain a lawsuit in its own name without joining the patent owner.
Plaintiff-Appellant TexasLDPC Inc. (TexasLDPC), the exclusive licensee of the patents and copyrights asserted in this case, sued Broadcom Inc., LSI Corporation, and Avago Technologies U.S. Inc. (collectively, Defendants) for infringement in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. But TexasLDPC did not join the patent owner, Texas A&M University (A&M), as a co-plaintiff. After years of litigation, the district court dismissed the lawsuit on two grounds: (1) TexasLDPC’s “License Agreement” covering the asserted patents and copyrights (Agreement) had automatically terminated during the course of the litigation when, in the district court’s view, TexasLDPC ceased its business operations; and (2) even if the Agreement had not terminated, the lawsuit could not proceed without joinder of A&M. TexasLDPC Inc. v. Broadcom Inc., No. 1:18-CV-01966-SB, 2023 WL 6387974, at *1 (D. Del. Sep. 29, 2023) (Decision).
We determine that, under the terms of the Agreement, TexasLDPC has not ceased its business operations, and thus the Agreement did not terminate when TexasLDPC shifted its business to enforcement. We also conclude that the Agreement conveyed “all substantial rights” in the asserted patents to TexasLDPC, thereby entitling TexasLDPC to sue for infringement in its own name. Because A&M is not otherwise a necessary party under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a), we reverse the district court’s dismissal.
Butenhoff v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Billy M. Butenhoff is a Marine veteran who served in Vietnam. He left active duty in 1970, and later that year the Veterans’ Administration—now the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)—found that Mr. Butenhoff had service-connected foot and knee disabilities and awarded him disability benefits. In 2017, Mr. Butenhoff submitted a new claim requesting that VA increase the disability ratings for his foot and knee conditions as well as find that he had compensable service-connected disabilities related to several other health conditions. The relevant VA regional office (RO) denied most of the sought benefits, and Mr. Butenhoff appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. For each condition on which the RO had made express findings, the Board directed the RO to consider additional evidence and make new findings; for several conditions that, according to Mr. Butenhoff, the RO had failed to address, the Board directed the RO to further develop the record, declining to decide whether those issues were truly pending. See In re Butenhoff, No. 20-29 010, 2024 WL 1999334, at *1–6 (Bd. Vet. App. Mar. 27, 2024) (Board Decision). Mr. Butenhoff appealed to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court), which dismissed for lack of a reviewable decision of the Board. Butenhoff v. Collins, No. 24-4868, 2025 WL 1057063, at *3–7 (Vet. App. Apr. 9, 2025) (CAVC Decision). Mr. Butenhoff appeals to this court, and we now affirm.
Hooper v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Seth Hooper, proceeding pro se, appeals the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, dismissing Mr. Hooper’s appeal of a remand order of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. For the reasons explained below, we affirm.
Navarro Martin v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Plaintiff-Appellant Maria Dolores Navarro Martin appeals the dismissal of her complaint by the Court of Federal Claims (“CFC”) alleging tort violations, a Fifth Amendment taking, contract disputes, and civil rights violations by Florida State actors, all apparently arising out of the Florida Agency for Healthcare Administration’s (“AHCA”) failure to pay for medical services rendered by Ms. Navarro Martin’s organization, Angels Creative Children’s Therapy LLC. Navarro Martin v. United States, No. 25-1675, 2026 WL 184306 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 18, 2026) (“Final Order”); Navarro Martin v. United States, No. 25-1675 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 21, 2026) (denying reconsideration) (“Reconsideration Order”).
We have jurisdiction over an appeal of a final decision of the CFC under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). We review a determination of the CFC’s jurisdiction de novo as a question of law and review jurisdiction-related fact-findings for clear error. Biafora v. United States, 773 F.3d 1326, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Because the CFC correctly dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, we affirm.
NCS Multistage Inc. v. TCO Group AS (Nonprecedential)
TCO Group AS (“TCO”) appeals the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas’s amended final judgment ordering that (1) TCO had induced infringement of claims 28 and 29 of U.S. Patent No. 10,465,445 (the “’445 patent”); (2) TCO committed contributory infringement of claims 28 and 29 of the ’445 patent; (3) claims 28 and 29 of the ’445 patent are not invalid; and (4) NCS Multistage Inc. and NCS Multistage LLC (collectively, “NCS”) were entitled to damages. See J.A. 39–41. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand.
Williams v. Federal Bureau of Prisons (Nonprecedential)
Robert L. Williams appeals the decision of an arbitrator sustaining his removal from employment with the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). We affirm.
Youmans v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Shatwaylla Youmans appeals an order of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing her complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Because none of Ms. Youmans’ allegations states a non-frivolous claim cognizable under the Tucker Act, we affirm.