Justia U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In this case, Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba (“NTS”) was awarded a construction contract by the United States Department of the Navy to build a new aircraft carrier maintenance pier at a naval base. The contract required NTS to demolish an old pier, design and build a replacement pier, and construct a new structure known as the Mole Quaywall, which would be designed by the government. During construction, NTS encountered unexpected subsurface soil conditions that complicated and increased the cost of the project. NTS sought additional compensation from the government alleging differing site conditions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims which had denied NTS's claim for additional compensation. The Court of Federal Claims found that NTS had not established a Type I differing site condition because the contract documents disclosed that NTS would encounter unpredictable subsurface conditions and possible obstructions. It also found that NTS had failed to prove a Type II differing site condition, as it had not demonstrated that any of the potential causes for hard driving were unknown or unusual in the region or materially different from comparable work. The Court of Appeals agreed with these findings and also ruled that the parol evidence rule had not been violated as NTS claimed. The Court of Appeals found that the parol evidence rule does not prevent a party from presenting evidence that a recital of fact in an integrated agreement may be untrue, and the challenged evidence was not introduced to modify any term of the contract. Therefore, the appeal by NTS was denied and the decision of the Court of Federal Claims was affirmed. View "NOVA GROUP/TUTOR-SALIBA v. US " on Justia Law

In a case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit involving VLSI Technology LLC and Intel Corporation, the court examined claims of patent infringement and respective damages. VLSI alleged that Intel had infringed two of its patents, U.S. Patent No. 7,523,373 ("373 patent") and U.S. Patent No. 7,725,759 ("759 patent").The jury found that Intel had indeed infringed both patents and awarded separate damages for each. Intel appealed these decisions. The court affirmed the judgment of infringement of the 373 patent but reversed the judgment of infringement of the 759 patent. The court also vacated the award of damages for the 373 patent and remanded the case for a new trial limited to damages. The court further reversed the denial of Intel's motion for leave to amend to add a license defense.The court's decisions hinged on a number of factors, including the interpretation of the patents, the evidence presented by both parties, and the legal conclusions drawn by the district court. The court's decision underscores the complexity of patent infringement cases and the importance of accurately interpreting and applying patent law. View "VLSI TECHNOLOGY LLC v. INTEL CORPORATION " on Justia Law

In 2010, the Army Corps of Engineers awarded ECCI a contract to design and build a military compound in Afghanistan. In 2014, ECCI sought compensation for construction delays allegedly attributable to the government. After six years of unsuccessful settlement discussions, followed by a nine-day hearing before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, the government—three months after the hearing—successfully moved to dismiss ECCI’s claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction for failure to state a “sum certain.”The Federal Circuit reversed. The requirement, established by the Federal Acquisition Regulation, that claims submitted under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. 7101–7109, state a “sum certain”—i.e., specify the precise dollar amount sought as relief—is not jurisdictional and is subject to forfeiture. The court noted the Supreme Court’s direction to “police this jurisdictional line.” Congress did not clearly state that a claim submitted under the CDA must include a sum certain: the sum-certain requirement is not even in the CDA itself. A claim that does not state a sum certain has not sufficiently pleaded the elements of a claim under the CDA and may be denied by the contracting officer and dismissed on appeal for failure to state a claim. If a party challenges a deficient sum certain after litigation has far progressed, however, that defense may be deemed forfeited. View "ECC International Constructors, LLC v. Secretary of the Army" on Justia Law

Katana, a California-based distributor of high-end wheels and tires, was the importer of record for 386 entries of passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China in 2009-2012 and supplied Customs and Border Protection with invoices that listed prices lower than what Katana actually paid its Chinese vendors. Due to this error, Katana undercalculated the amount of safeguard duties, regular customs duties, harbor maintenance fees, and merchandise processing fees it owed by $5,742,483.80. Customs issued a demand to Katana for the unpaid duties and fees and later filed suit under 19 U.S.C. 1592(d).Katana sought dismissal for lack of jurisdiction because the government had filed suit after the statute of limitations, 19 U.S.C. 1621, had run. Katana stated that, although it had signed a waiver of the limitations period on October 25, 2016, it had revoked the waiver before the expiration of the limitations period. The Trade Court found that Katana had properly revoked its waiver and that the suit was untimely.The Federal Circuit reversed. The statute of limitations in 19 U.S.C. 1621 is not a jurisdictional time limit; it is subject to waiver and equitable tolling. On remand, Katana can assert an affirmative defense concerning the invalidity of its waiver. View "United States v. Katana Racing, Inc." on Justia Law

The Army issued a solicitation for a Next Generation Load Device Medium to encrypt and decrypt sensitive information on the battlefield, stating that in order to be eligible for the award Offerors must receive a minimum of acceptable rating in each Technical Subfactor. CACI's initial proposal received a Technical/Risk Rating of unacceptable because it failed to provide for two-factor authentication for all modes of operation as required by the solicitation. Nonetheless, CACI’s proposal was included in the competitive range. CACI was allowed to submit a final proposal. The Army assigned three deficiencies to CACI’s proposal related to its two-factor authentication proposal, making CACI ineligible for the award. The Army awarded the contract to others. CACI filed a bid protest challenging the technical deficiencies.The Claims Court dismissed CACI’s complaint for lack of standing under a new theory not raised before the contracting officer–that CACI had an organizational conflict of interest that could not be waived or mitigated, which made CACI ineligible for the award. Alternatively, the Claims Court found that, even if CACI had standing, the Army acted reasonably in its assessment of CACI’s proposal. The Federal Circuit held that the Claims Court erred in treating the statutory standing issue as jurisdictional but affirmed on the merits. View "CACI, Inc.-Federal v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2017, Dixon’s tax preparer filed amended tax returns for him, within the time permitted by law, claiming a refund for tax years 2013 and 2014. After an audit, the IRS denied those claims and assessed additional taxes. Dixon filed suit. During the litigation, it became clear that Dixon had not personally signed his name on the 2017 amended returns—the tax preparer had signed Dixon’s name—and no authorizing power-of-attorney documentation accompanied the amended returns. Because 26 U.S.C. 7422(a) prevents a taxpayer from filing suit to claim a refund without having earlier submitted a “duly filed” refund claim to the IRS, and the 2017 amended returns were not “duly filed,” the Claims Court dismissed the case. Within days, Dixon filed duly signed amended returns for the 2013 and 2014 tax years, though the time allowed for amended returns claiming a refund for those years had passed. He filed another suit based on the IRS’s failure to act on his 2020 amended returns.The Claims Court again dismissed. Dixon’s first action was properly dismissed because the claims, though timely filed, were not “duly filed.” By the time MDixon filed corrected claims with the IRS, the time limits for filing with the IRS had passed unless the corrected claims related back to the earlier claims under the informal-claim doctrine, which does not apply because the IRS loses authority to act on an amendment of an unperfected claim once a suit is filed. View "Dixon v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Apple and four other companies, have repeatedly been sued for patent infringement and thereafter petitioned the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to institute inter partes reviews (IPRs), under 35 U.S.C. 311–319, with unpatentability challenges to patent claims that were asserted against them in court. They sued the PTO under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 701– 706, challenging instructions issued to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board concerning how to exercise, under delegation by the Director, the Director’s discretion whether to institute a requested IPR. Plaintiffs assert that the instructions are likely to produce too many denials.The district court dismissed the APA action, finding that the Director’s instructions were made unreviewable by 35 U.S.C. 314(d): “The determination by the Director whether to institute an inter partes review under [section 314] shall be final and nonappealable.” The Federal Circuit affirmed the unreviewability dismissal of plaintiffs’ challenges to the instructions as being contrary to the statute and arbitrary and capricious. No constitutional challenges are presented. The court reversed the unreviewability dismissal of the challenge to the instructions as having been improperly issued because they had to be, but were not, promulgated through notice-and-comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553. Apple had standing to present that challenge. View "Apple Inc. v. Vidal" on Justia Law

May is a disabled child of a deceased veteran. The VA found that May was disabled from birth, with permanent incapacity for self-support, and granted him entitlement to dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) benefits in October 2018, with an effective date of May 18, 2016, concluding that May’s entitlement to DIC benefits ended on February 1, 2017, when he married. May sought reinstatement of DIC benefits based on his divorce. May filed a notice of appeal to the Veterans Court in February 2021, listing the date of the Board’s decision as February 19, 2019. The Board had not rendered a decision on February 19, 2019; rather, May had received correspondence that day from a VA regional office certifying an appeal to the Board.The Veterans Court ordered May to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed. In letters, May asked that his appeal not be dismissed and that his benefits be reinstated. May did not identify a Board decision from which he was appealing, nor did he argue that the Board had unreasonably delayed its decision. The Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court’s jurisdiction is limited to appeals from Board decisions; absent such a decision, it could not consider May’s appeal, 38 U.S.C. 7252(a), 7266(a)). View "May v. McDonough" on Justia Law

Johnson served as an Air Traffic Controller Watch Supervisor. The Air Force alleged that Johnson was at fault for a violation of FAA policy concerning the separation of aircraft during his watch in 2018 and that this was grounds for removal in light of his prior offenses. A notice of a removal decision was effective May 11, 2019. On May 7, 2019, the local Union initiated grievance procedures. When the dispute was not resolved, the Union invoked arbitration through the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. In November 2020, the Arbitrator upheld the removal decision.The Union appealed but withdrew from the appeal because its national union had placed the local Union in receivership and stripped its counsel of all authority to proceed. Without reaching the merits, the Federal Circuit dismissed Johnson’s motion (Federal Rule 43(b) of Appellate Procedure), to substitute the Union. A party may not substitute under Rule 43(b) where the original party to the appeal lacked standing; unions lack standing to initiate an appeal of an arbitration decision under 5 U.S.C. 7703(a). A party may not substitute under Rule 43(b) when the original party being substituted lacked standing to initiate the appeal. View "American Federation of Government Workers v. Department of the Air Force" on Justia Law

Jawbone sued Google for patent infringement in the Western District of Texas after being assigned ownership of the nine asserted patents and seven months after being incorporated in Texas. Jawbone rents space in Waco to store documents relating to the patents, from which it conducts some distribution and sales activities. No Jawbone personnel work at any location in the Western District. Google moved under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) to transfer the action to the Northern District of California, arguing that: the relevant technical aspects of the accused earbuds, smartphones, speakers, displays, and software products were researched, designed, and developed at Google’s headquarters within Northern California; the technology underlying the asserted patents assigned to Jawbone was likewise developed and prosecuted in Northern California; witnesses and sources of proof (prototypes, Google’s key personnel, and four of the six named inventors) were primarily located in Northern California; no witnesses or sources of proof were located in Western Texas.The Federal Circuit ordered the district court to grant the motion. The center of gravity of this action, focusing on the “Volkswagen factors” and the overriding convenience inquiry, is clearly in the Northern District of California, not in the Western District of Texas. Four factors favor transfer and four factors are neutral. No factor weighs against transfer. View "In Re Google LLC" on Justia Law