Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order in a patent case on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and three nonprecedential opinions. The lone nonprecedential opinion was in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Of the nonprecedential opinions, one came in a trademark case, one came in a patent case, and the final one came in a government contract case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order.
Abutalib v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Precedential)
Jabeen N. Abutalib, a physician with the Veterans Health Administration (“VHA”), sought corrective action from the Merit Systems Protection Board for personnel actions she alleged to be in retaliation for the Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) complaint that she filed. The Board held that Dr. Abutalib failed to make a nonfrivolous showing that she had engaged in whistleblowing or other protected activity, and it therefore dismissed her appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.
Adaptrend, Inc. v. Stewart (Nonprecedential)
Adaptrend, Inc. (“Adaptrend”) appeals from a decision of the United States Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) cancelling its registration of the TONOSAMA mark. Narita Exp. LLC v. Adaptrend, Inc., Cancellation No. 9207478, 2022 WL 15328960 (T.T.A.B. Sept. 20, 2022) (“Decision”). For the following reasons, we affirm.
Huang v. Amazon.com, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Xiaohua Huang appeals from a decision by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, which dismissed his Second Amended Complaint (SAC) and denied him leave to file his proposed Third Amended Complaint (TAC). See Huang v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 23-CV-04679, 2024 WL 413355 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2024) (Order). For the following reasons, we affirm.
Sanders v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Corey Sanders appeals the dismissal of his action by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (the “Claims Court”). Sanders v. United States, No. 23-103, 2023 WL 6307661 (Fed. Cl. Sept. 28, 2023). Mr. Sanders alleged that the U.S. Army: (1) improperly discharged him in 2003 by giving him a discharge document that he did not sign; and (2) erred by failing to (a) correct his military records, (b) retroactively promote him and provide associated backpay, (c) provide his family legal assistance and transition benefits upon his discharge, and (d) award disability retirement based on Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and antisocial personality disorder. The Claims Court held that Mr. Sanders’ claims related to the 2003 discharge—including correction of his military records, retroactive promotion, and associated backpay—were time-barred, that Mr. Sanders failed to identify a money-mandating statute for his legal assistance and transition benefits claim, and that he failed to state a claim for disability retirement. For the following reasons, we affirm the dismissal.
In re Dexcom, Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
Upon consideration of the parties’ joint stipulation to dismiss Appeal Nos. 2024-1449 and 2024-1450, and Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc.’s motion to withdraw as appellee in Appeal Nos. 2024-1506 and 2024-1507,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) Appeal Nos. 2024-1449 and 2024-1450 are deconsolidated from Appeal Nos. 2024-1506 and 2024-1507. The motion to withdraw is granted. The revised official and short captions are reflected in this order.
(2) Appeal Nos. 2024-1449 and 2024-1450 are dismissed. Each party shall bear its own costs.
(3) The briefing schedule is stayed for Appeal Nos. 2024-1506 and 2024-1507.
(4) Within 30 days from the date of entry of this order, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is directed to inform this court whether it intends to intervene in either of the remaining appeals and, if so, whether it intends to file its own response brief or to rely on the brief previously filed by Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc.
(5) If the PTO elects to participate as intervenor in either of the remaining appeals, its docketing statement in the respective appeal is due within 14 days of the date of filing of its notice of intervention and, if applicable, its brief is due within 40 days of the date of filing of its notice.
(6) If the PTO elects not to participate in the appeals, the reply brief will be due no later than 21 days after the filing of PTO’s notice of non-intervention or February 18, 2025, whichever date is later.