This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions and ten nonprecedential orders. The first opinion reverses and remands a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The second opinion reverses a judgment of the District of Delaware in a patent case. As for the orders, one remands a case back to the Merit Systems Protection Board, four are denials of petitions, and five are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions, the introduction to the first order, and links to the remaining orders.
Ravi v. United States (Precedential)
The allegations of fact we accept as true for purposes of this appeal are straightforward. Starting in March 2018, Ravi Teja Tiyagurra paid thousands of dollars to the “University of Farmington” to enroll as a student, expecting to take classes. At the time of his enrollment, Mr. Ravi was unaware that the University was not a university at all but had been formed and advertised to offer educational services for money—though not actually provide them—as an undercover operation of the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to target fraud involving student visas. The government’s operation eventually came to light, but the government neither provided the paid-for education nor gave Mr. Ravi his money back.
Mr. Ravi brought an action in the United States Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) against the United States, alleging a breach of contract and an accompanying breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The government moved to dismiss the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, and for a failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. The Claims Court ultimately dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, without reaching other issues. Ravi v. United States, 158 Fed. Cl. 775, 778 (2022) (Claims Court Decision). On appeal, we reverse the Claims Court’s dismissal and remand for further proceedings.
Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. (Precedential)
Amarin Pharma, Inc., Amarin Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited, and Mochida Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Amarin”) appeal from a decision of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granting Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.’s and Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC’s (collectively, “Hikma”) motion to dismiss Amarin’s complaint for failure to state a claim. Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharms. USA Inc., 578 F. Supp. 3d 642 (D. Del. 2022) (“Decision”) Because Amarin’s allegations against Hikma plausibly state a claim for induced infringement, we reverse.
Kuhlmann v. Department of Labor (Nonprecedential Order)
Ms. Kuhlmann has argued before this court that “[o]ne obvious remedy” to the Board’s purported error “is for Chairman Harris to reverse her . . . recusal.” She has now done so. Given that the Board agrees with Ms. Kuhlmann that at least as of June 1, 2024, Chairman Harris has no basis to recuse, we find it appropriate to remand this case to allow the Board to “adjudicate [Ms. Kuhlmann’s petition] without delay.”
Denials of Petitions
- In re Haptic, Inc. (patent)
- In re Clark (MSPB)
- In re Prewitt (veterans)
- In re Jean (veterans)