This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The court also issued five nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The second comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The third and fourth come in employment cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. And the fifth comes in a patent case appealed from the Western District of North Carolina. Finally, the court issued a nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus against the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order.
JKB Solutions and Services v. United States (Precedential)
JKB Solutions & Services, LLC appeals a decision of the Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) granting the government’s motion for summary judgment on JKB Solutions’ breach of contract claim. JKB Sol’ns & Servs., LLC v. United States (JKB Sol’ns II), 150 Fed. Cl. 252 (2020). The Claims Court held that the United States Army constructively invoked the termination for convenience clause incorporated in JKB Solutions’ contract, such that JKB Solutions could not recover the damages it sought. Because that clause does not apply to JKB Solutions’ service contract, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.
Nussbaum v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Appellant Thomas Nussbaum appeals the dismissal of his court action by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims upon finding that Nussbaum’s action is untimely pursuant to 41 U.S.C. § 7104(b)(3). For the reasons explained below, we affirm.
Kirkpatrick v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
Kevin L. Kirkpatrick appeals a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) affirming a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) that denied Kirkpatrick an earlier effective date for the award of service connection for bilateral hearing loss and an acquired psychiatric disability. Kirkpatrick v. Wilkie, No. 19-5562, 2020 WL 7021464, at *1, *4 (Vet. App. Nov. 30, 2020). Because Kirkpatrick’s constitutional challenge lacks merit and we lack jurisdiction over his remaining arguments, we affirm in part and dismiss in part.
Broaden v. Department of Transportation (Nonprecedential)
Petitioner, Michael Broaden, an Air Force veteran, appearing pro se, appeals a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board denying corrective action with respect to his unsuccessful application for employment as an Air Traffic Control Specialist with the Federal Aviation Administration. Because the MSPB’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, and was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, we affirm.
Knapp v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
Petitioner Lindsey Knapp challenges the Merit Systems Protection Board’s dismissal of her individual right of action appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Ms. Knapp claimed that the Department of the Army subjected her to adverse personnel action in retaliation for protected whistleblowing activity. Because we conclude that the Board did not have jurisdiction, we affirm the Board’s dismissal.
Wagner v. Ashline (Nonprecedential)
Julie G. Wagner appeals the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina’s summary judgment denying Ms. Wagner’s claim to be added as a joint inventor of U.S. Patent No. 8,272,074 under 35 U.S.C. § 256, as well as her related state law claims of unjust enrichment, fraud, and constructive trust. Because we agree with the district court that Ms. Wagner presented insufficient evidence to corroborate her claim of joint inventorship as a matter of law, we affirm.
In re Balik (Nonprecedential Order)
Jeremiah W. Balik has filed a submission entitled “Preemptory Appeal [and] Motion for Writ of Mandamus,” in which he asks the court to “compel [the] Board of Veterans’ Appeals . . . to render a timely decision.” ECF No. 2 at 3. He also files a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and a motion for an extension to file IFP and notice of what he characterizes as a related district court case.
* * *
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The petition is denied.
(2) All pending motions are denied as moot.