This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a government contract case, a precedential opinion in a takings case, and a nonprecedential order in a patent case. Here are the introductions.
Langkamp v. United States (Precedential)
Trevor Langkamp appeals the judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims granting the government’s motion for summary judgment and rejecting his claim seeking damages for breach of a tort settlement agreement. See Langkamp v. United States, 131 Fed. Cl. 85 (2017) (“Court of Federal Claims Decision”). Because we conclude that the court erred in holding that the United States had no continuing liability for the future monthly and periodic lump-sum payments specified in the agreement, we reverse and remand.
Haggart v. United States (Precedential)
Appellees Daniel Haggart, Kathy Haggart, et al. (collectively, “Landowners”) filed this “rails-to-trails” class action against the United States (“Government”), claiming that the Government, through the National Trails System Act, effected a Fifth Amendment taking of Landowners’ reversionary rights to property underlying railroad easements owned by the BNSF Railway Company. On remand, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims granted a motion to enforce a settlement agreement (“the Settlement Agreement”) that the parties had previously negotiated and agreed upon. Haggart v. United States (Haggart VI), 131 Fed. Cl. 628, 643 (2017) (J.A. 1–16). Thereafter, the Court of Federal Claims entered a partial final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Rules of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, approving the Settlement Agreement, but deferring determination on the amount of attorney fees and costs to award class counsel under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (“URA”). Haggart v. United States (Haggart VIII), 136 Fed. Cl. 70, 81 (2018) (J.A. 28–39); see J.A. 40 (Rule 54(b) Judgment). The Government appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3) (2012). We affirm.
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd. v. ResMed Ltd. (Nonprecedential Order)
Appellee ResMed Limited (“ResMed”) moves to dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Specifically, ResMed argues that appellant Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited (“Fisher”) lacks standing to maintain this appeal from an inter partes review (“IPR”) decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”). For the reasons set forth below, ResMed’s motion is granted.