This morning, the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions and one nonprecedential opinion. One of the precedential opinions addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which dismissed a claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Another precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which denied a petition for cancellation of mark’s registration. The third precedential opinion vacates and remands a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims due to impermissible fact finding. The nonprecedential opinion reverses and remands a grant of summary judgment of noninfringment by a district court in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Great Northern Properties, L.P. v. United States (Precedential Opinion)
Great Northern Properties, L.P. (“GNP”) brought suit against the United States, alleging a Fifth Amendment taking of its coal leases on the Otter Creek property in Montana. GNP contended that the federal government acted through the Montana state regulatory authority to preclude the necessary permits. GNP’s theory was that either Montana’s actions were coerced by the federal government or that Montana acted as an agent of the federal government. The Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In the alternative, the Claims Court dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. We agree that the Claims Court properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. GNP did not establish that Montana’s actions were coerced, or that Montana acted as an agent of the federal government. We affirm.
Naterra International, Inc. v. Bensalem (Precedential Opinion)
Naterra International, Inc. (“Naterra”) appeals from a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) denying Naterra’s petition for cancellation of Samah Bensalem’s BABIES’ MAGIC TEA standard character mark registration. Naterra Int’l, Inc. v. Samah Bensalem, No. 92074494, 2022 WL 1237887, at *1, *21 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 4, 2022) (“Decision”). Naterra challenges the Board’s conclusion that there was no likelihood of confusion between Naterra’s BABY MAGIC mark and Bensalem’s BABIES’ MAGIC TEA mark. For the reasons below, we vacate the Board’s denial of Naterra’s cancellation petition and remand for further proceedings.
Stinson v. McDonough (Precedential Opinion)
This is an appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, affirming the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ denial of Mr. Robert Stinson’s request for service connection for his blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm. Because the Veterans Court impermissibly found facts in the first instance when reviewing the Board’s decision, we vacate and remand.
MasterObjects, Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (Nonprecedential Opinion)
MasterObjects, Inc. (“MasterObjects”) appeals from a decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granting summary judgment that Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta”) did not infringe U.S. Patents 8,539,024 (the “’024 patent”); 9,760,628 (the “’628 patent”); 10,311,073 (the “’073 patent”); and 10,394,866 (the “’866 patent”) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). MasterObjects, Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. C 21-05428, 2022 WL 12039301 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2022) (“Decision”). For the following reasons, we reverse and remand.