This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, one nonprecedential opinion, one nonprecedential order, and an errata. Of the two precedential opinions, one comes in a government contract case and the other comes in a trade case. The lone nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. And the lone nonprecedential order transfers a case. Here is are the introductions to the opinions and order as well as a link to the errata.
Boyd v. United States (Precedential)
This case involves a breach of contract action brought against the United States Department of Agriculture regarding Farm Service Agency loans. Appellants, Lester Bonner and Princess Williams, individually and on behalf of a class of purportedly similarly-situated “socially disadvantaged farmers” (as that term is used in the applicable statute), appeal the decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims, which dismissed their complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims. Because Appellants failed to plausibly allege facts demonstrating the formation of a contract, we affirm.
Marmen Inc. v. United States (Precedential)
Marmen Inc., Marmen Énergie Inc., and Marmen Energy Co. (collectively, “Marmen”) appeal the U.S. Court of International Trade’s (“CIT”) decision sustaining the U.S. Department of Commerce’s (“Commerce”) final determination that calculated a 4.94% dumping margin for utilityscale wind towers from Canada. See Marmen Inc. v. United States, 545 F. Supp. 3d 1305 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2021) (“Marmen I”); Marmen Inc. v. United States, 627 F. Supp. 3d 1312 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2023) (“Marmen II”). We vacate and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
In re Floyd (Nonprecedential)
Applicant Bonnie Iris McDonald Floyd (“Floyd”) appeals the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) affirming a final office action that denied Floyd’s design application’s claim of priority to her previously filed utility application and rejected her design claim as anticipated by her utility application. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Hubbard v. Kansas Department of Health & Environment (Nonprecedential Order)
Ronda Kaye Hubbard filed a complaint naming multiple defendants, including federal, state, and nongovernmental entities. She alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 and sought $166 million, medical treatment, insurance, and protection for herself and family members. The district court dismissed, and Ms. Hubbard filed an appeal directed to this court. On February 20, 2025, this court directed the parties to show cause why this case should not be dismissed or transferred for lack of jurisdiction. The only party to respond, the Social Security Administration, urges this court to transfer to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
This court’s jurisdiction to review district court cases is generally limited to cases involving the patent laws, see 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1); civil actions on review to the district court from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, see § 1295(a)(4)(C); and cases involving certain damages claims against the United States “not exceeding $10,000 in amount,” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), see 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(2). This case is outside of that limited subject matter jurisdiction. We may transfer to another court, if it is in the interest of justice, where “the action or appeal could have been brought at the time it was filed.” 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Here, the court concludes it appropriate to transfer to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The appeal and all its filings are transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.