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

The 215 patent is directed to improving the efficiency by which messages are sent from a receiver to a sender in a telecommunications system to advise the sender that errors occurred in a particular message. In inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found that various claims were anticipated. The Federal Circuit initially affirmed, holding that whether the petition for review was time-barred was not subject to judicial review. On rehearing, en banc, the Federal Circuit remanded. The Patent and Trademark Office is prohibited from instituting inter partes review if the petition requesting that review is filed more than one year after the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint for patent infringement, 35 U.S.C. 315(b); under section 314(d) the determination “whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable.” The court, noting the strong presumption in favor of judicial review of agency actions, found no clear and convincing indication of congressional intent to prohibit review of time-bar determinations under section 315(b). In finding such rulings appealable, the court overruled its own precedent. View "Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp." on Justia Law

In 1996, the Federal Communications Commission awarded spectrum licenses to Alpine, for use in the provision of wireless telecommunications services. Alpine bid approximately $8.9 million for one license and $17.3 million for the other. As a small business, Alpine was eligible to pay in installments over the 10-year term of the licenses. Alpine’s failure to make required payments in 2002 triggered automatic cancellation under FCC regulations. In addition to taking other steps in response, Alpine sought relief from the FCC and, on review under the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 402(b)(5), from the District of Columbia Circuit. In 2016, Alpine filed this action against the United States under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 1491(a)(1), arguing that the FCC breached contractual obligations in canceling the licenses and that the cancellation was a taking for which Alpine was entitled to just compensation. The Federal Circuit affirmed dismissal by the Claims Court for lack of jurisdiction under the Tucker Act. The Communications Act provides a comprehensive statutory scheme through which Alpine could raise its contract claims and could challenge the alleged taking and receive a remedy that could have provided just compensation in this case, foreclosing jurisdiction under the Tucker Act. View "Alpine PCS, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

Petitioners, employed by the Office of Air and Marine (OAM), within the Department of Homeland Security, alleged that the agency’s actions and policies violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), 38 U.S.C. 4301–4335. They were members of the Air Force and Navy Reserves. They subsequently resigned, claiming that they were “forced to quit.” An administrative judge (AJ) rejected Petitioners’ contention that the OAM violated USERRA by failing to grant them waivers from participating in training courses that conflicted with their military service dates, creating a hostile work environment, forcing them to surrender their badges and weapons during military leaves of 30 or more days, delaying within-grade pay increases, and requiring them to use annual, sick, or other leave in lieu of military leave. The AJ found “a legitimate basis for the [Agency’s] security policy,” and an “absence of any evidence that its [weapons] policy was adopted with discriminatory intent.” Allegedly hostile incidents were either “‘unavoidable’ workplace friction” or did not rise to the level of “humiliating,” “physically threatening,” or “so frequent and pervasive” to render their work environment hostile. They later filed a second complaint, alleging constructive discharge. The AJ, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Federal Circuit agreed that the constructive discharge claims were barred by collateral estoppel as “inextricably linked” to their previous hostile work environment claims. The standard for establishing constructive discharge is higher than that for hostile work environment, View "Bryant v. Merit Systems Protection Board" on Justia Law

Tropp’s patents are directed to the use of dual-access locks in airline luggage inspection. Tropp’s system permits the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to unlock, inspect, and relock checked baggage. Sentry administers a similar system and has license agreements with lock and luggage manufacturers. Under an Agreement with TSA, Sentry provides TSA with passkeys for distribution to field locations. TSA takes no responsibility for damage to baggage secured with Sentry locks but will make good faith efforts to distribute and use the passkeys. TSA does not endorse any particular system. Following earlier appeals, the district court granted summary judgment, finding that Sentry and its licensees did not infringe Tropp’s patents under 35 U.S.C. 271(a). The Federal Circuit vacated. A reasonable jury could conclude that TSA’s performance of the final two claim steps is attributable to Sentry such that Sentry is liable for direct infringement. Although the partnership-like relationship between Sentry and TSA is unique, the court should have considered evidence that TSA, hoping to obtain access to certain benefits, can only do so if it performs certain steps identified by Sentry, under terms prescribed by Sentry. Sentry can stop or limit TSA’s ability to practice the final two steps by terminating the Agreement, discontinuing its practice of replacing passkeys that are damaged or lost or changing the design of future locks such that the TSA keys no longer work. View "Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp" on Justia Law

Crediford served with the Coast Guard in 1983-1985 and in 1990-1991. In 1985, he visited the VFW Club after work and drank alcohol, then was in a single-vehicle accident. A breath test registered a blood alcohol level of 0.12 percent, more than three hours later. The police charged him with DUI. Crediford's commanding officer’s report stated that fatigue and alcohol were responsible for the accident and that Crediford’s “injuries were not a result of his own misconduct and were incurred in the line of duty.” The conclusion was approved in an “ACTION OF THE CONVENING AUTHORITY.” In December 1985, the Commander of the Thirteenth Coast Guard District issued a Memorandum, that “approved a finding that injuries … were ‘not incurred in the line of duty and were due to his own misconduct.’” In 2004, Crediford sought compensation for chronic pain due to spinal and soft tissue injury resulting from the accident. The VA Regional Office denied compensation, characterizing the injuries as the result of willful misconduct, not occurring in the line of duty. Crediford argued that the Memorandum was issued “post-discharge, without notice that an investigation was ongoing. The Federal Circuit vacated. The Board erred in making its own findings when there were service department findings before it. VA regulations assign “binding” determination of “willful misconduct” and “line of duty” to the Service Department. The Coast Guard’s determinations, made in 1985, must be addressed. View "Crediford v. Shulkin" on Justia Law

Ebanks sought veterans benefits for service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder, hearing loss, and arthritis. His claim for an increased disability rating was denied by the VA Regional Office (RO) in October 2014; in December he sought Board of Veterans Appeals review, with a video-conference hearing (38 U.S.C. 7107). Two years later, the Board had not scheduled a hearing. Ebanks sought a writ of mandamus. The Veterans Court denied relief. While his appeal was pending, the Board held his hearing in October 2017. The Federal Circuit vacated, finding the matter moot so that it lacked jurisdiction. The delay is typical and any Board hearings on remand are subject to expedited treatment under 38 U.S.C. 7112. Congress has recently overhauled the review process for RO decisions, so that veterans may now choose one of three tracks for further review of an RO decision, Given these many contingencies, Ebanks has not shown a sufficiently reasonable expectation that he will again be subjected to the same delays. Even if this case were not moot, the court questioned “the appropriateness of granting individual relief to veterans who claim unreasonable delays in VA’s first-come-first-served queue.” The “issue seems best addressed in the class-action context,.” View "Ebanks v. Shulkin" on Justia Law

Lentz entered federal service in 2002. He had no disciplinary record until May 2014, when his supervisor issued a reprimand based on his authorization of grazing on public lands, without prior approval. In November, Lentz’s supervisor proposed a 14-day suspension, citing his management of interns, behavior toward supervisors, and interaction with outsiders. Lentz then went on medical leave. The proposed suspension was sustained, to commence on February 15, 2015. Lentz resigned on February 13, citing harassment and a hostile work environment that aggravated an illness and his veterans disability. He claimed to have filed complaints under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), 38 U.S.C. 4301–4335, and that the reprimands were retaliatory. Before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), Lentz asserted constructive discharge, discrimination on the basis of his status as a disabled veteran, and retaliation for filing a complaint. The Administrative Judge dismissed the involuntary resignation claim under 5 U.S.C. 75, and held that Lentz was collaterally estopped from raising in the USERRA proceeding the evidence and issues assigned to the involuntary resignation proceeding. The AJ later dismissed the discrimination charges, stating that Lentz failed to make non-frivolous allegations that a reasonable person would have felt compelled to resign due to discrimination or reprisal. The Board affirmed. The Federal Circuit vacated, finding that the dismissal was based on incorrect evidentiary procedures including the inappropriate application of collateral estoppel, and remanded the issue of constructive discharge. View "Lentz v. Merit Systems Protection Board" on Justia Law

Morrison’s position as a New London Naval Submarine Base firefighter required a security clearance. The Navy revoked Morrison's clearance, citing concerns regarding his personal finances. Regional Fire Chief Cox signed a letter finalizing Morrison’s removal but it was not immediately formally issued. Instead, District Fire Chief Clapsadle, who was to deliver the letter, offered Morrison the option to retire preemptively. Morrison chose to retire, thinking his retirements benefits were at risk. In fact, Morrison would have received those benefits regardless of whether he retired or was terminated, 5 U.S.C. 8312-8315. After learning that his benefits were not at risk, Morrison appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board, claiming that his retirement was involuntary. Based on Morrison’s allegations that an agency manager had told him he would lose his benefits if he were terminated, the Board held that an agency is required to provide employees with adequate information to make an informed retirement decision but that, if the Navy would have removed Morrison, he was not entitled to reinstatement or back pay. The Federal Circuit dismissed Morrison’s petition for lack of jurisdiction. The Board’s ruling was not a “final decision,” but required the Navy to decide whether and when Morrison would have been terminated if he had not retired. . View "Morrison v. Department of the Navy" on Justia Law

To receive disability compensation based on service, a veteran must demonstrate that the disability was incurred or aggravated in the line of duty, 38 U.S.C. 101(16). Congress has enacted presumptive service connection laws to protect certain veterans who faced exposure to chemical toxins but would find it difficult to prove a “nexus” between their exposure and their disease. Under the Agent Orange Act, 38 U.S.C. 1116, any veteran who served in Vietnam during the Vietnam era and who suffers from any designated disease “shall be presumed to have been exposed during such service” to herbicides. The VA determines which diseases qualify for presumptive service connection and defines service in Vietnam. Absent on-land service, the VA concluded that the statute did not authorize presumptive service connection for veterans serving in the open waters surrounding Vietnam. The Federal Circuit upheld that position in 2007. In 2016, the VA amended its M21-1 procedures manual to also exclude veterans who served in bays, harbors, and ports of Vietnam. The VA did not implement this additional restriction by way of notice and comment regulation as it did its open waters restriction and has not published its view on this issue in the Federal Register. The Federal Circuit rejected a challenge for lack of jurisdiction. The VA’s revisions are not agency actions reviewable under 38 U.S.C. 502. The M21-1 Manual provisions are only binding on Veterans Benefits Administration employees. View "Gray v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs" on Justia Law

TRICARE provides current and former members of the military and their dependents' medical and dental care. Hospitals that provide TRICARE services are reimbursed under Department of Defense (DoD) guidelines. TRICARE previously did not require, DoD to use Medicare reimbursement rules. A 2001 amendment, 10 U.S.C. 1079(j)(2), required TRICARE to use those rules to the extent practicable. DoD regulations noted the complexities of the transition process and the lack of comparable cost report data and stated “it is not practicable” to “adopt Medicare OPPS for hospital outpatient services at this time.” A study, conducted after hospitals complained, determined that DoD underpaid for outpatient radiology but correctly reimbursed other outpatient services. TRICARE created a process for review of radiology payments. Each plaintiff-hospital requested a discretionary payment, which required them to release “all claims . . . known or unknown” related to TRICARE payments. Several refused to sign the release and did not receive any payments. Although it discovered calculation errors with respect to hospitals represented by counsel, TRICARE did not recalculate payments for any hospitals that did not contest their discretionary payment offer. The Claims Court dismissed the hospitals’ suit. The Federal Circuit reversed in part, finding that they may bring a claim for breach of contract but may not bring money-mandating claims under 10 U.S.C. 1079(j)(2) and 32 C.F.R. 199.7(h)(2) because the government’s interpretation of the statute was reasonable. View "Ingham Regional Medical Center v. United States" on Justia Law