This morning, the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential opinions. One comes in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, one comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware, one comes in government takings case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, one comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans, and one comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Sergent’s Mechanical Systems, Inc. v. United States (Nonprecedential)
In 2021, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) terminated its 2020 contract with Sergent’s Mechanical Systems, Inc. (d/b/a Sergent Construction) for default. VA did so after Sergent confirmed that it would not timely complete performance of the work required by the contract— work involving asbestos abatement and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems at a VA facility. Sergent sought relief from the termination under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101–7109, filing suit in the United States Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court). The Claims Court granted summary judgment in favor of VA in 2024, determining that VA properly terminated the contract for Sergent’s default because no modification of the contract occurred and no circumstances excused Sergent’s delay in performance. Sergent’s Mechanical Systems, Inc. v. United States, 173 Fed. Cl. 56, 63–74, 76–77 (2024) (Decision). Sergent appealed, and we now affirm.
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. v. Lupin Ltd. (Nonprecedential)
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. appeals a final judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The district court held that certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,273,735 and 8,501,730 were not infringed by Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s manufacturing process incorporated in Abbreviated New Drug Application No. 216063. The court also held that certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,273,735 were invalid for obviousness. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Campo v. United States (Nonprecedential)
In 2019, the Bonnet Carré Spillway (“Spillway”) was opened for a total of 123 days to prevent the Mississippi River from flooding New Orleans. This action resulted in the destruction of existing oyster stock, oyster beds, and reefs.
Oyster farmers affected by the 2019 Spillway events sued the government in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, alleging that the government took their real and personal property (e.g., oyster stocks, oyster beds, and reefs) in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed their complaint. Because Appellants failed to allege a cognizable property interest for Fifth Amendment purposes, we affirm the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal.
Batiste v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Frank D. Batiste served in the United States Army from 1972 to 1975. On August 18, 2006, he applied on his own (i.e., without representation) for a pension, under 38 U.S.C. §§ 1513, 1521, based on a disability traceable not to his service but to a motor vehicle accident in 2000. In that pension application, Mr. Batiste responded “no” to the question of whether he was “claiming a special monthly pension [SMP] because [he] need[s] the regular assistance of another person,” J.A. 93 (question 2), a question embodying the relevant standard for receipt of an SMP addition to the otherwise-granted pension, see 38 U.S.C. §§ 1502(b), 1521(d); 38 C.F.R. § 3.351(a)(1). In May 2007, the relevant Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) granted Mr. Batiste a pension without a special monthly pension, giving the award an effective date of August 18, 2006, J.A. 38–41, and basing it on documentation Mr. Batiste submitted from two medical examinations (in 2002 and 2005) and social security records, J.A. 48–66; J.A. 67–69; J.A. 78–82. The RO informed Mr. Batiste that he had one year to appeal, J.A. 40, but he did not do so.
Samesurf, Inc. v. Intuit Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Samesurf, Inc. (“Samesurf”) is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 9,185,145 (“’145 patent”), entitled “Method and Apparatus for the Implementation of a Real-Time, Sharable Browsing Experience on a Guest Device.” J.A. 202. In an inter partes review (“IPR”), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) issued a final written decision (“FWD”) finding that all claims of the ’145 patent were obvious over World Intellectual Property Organization International Publication No. WO 00/48110 (“Lebrun”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0033656 (“Wang”). Samesurf argues that the Board’s unpatentability determination rests on an incorrect claim construction. Because the Board correctly construed the disputed claim term, we affirm.