Source: https://boards.answers.findlaw.com/topic/242946-statute/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 02:50:51+00:00

Document:
What statute properly invokes the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit with jurisdiction to review of a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing a case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction over a breach of contract claim. See e.g., 28 USC §1292(c), and §1295. Is there any statute or statutes that definitively invokes the courts of appeals for the Federal Circuit jurisdiction over an order appealed from the Federal Court of Claims.
And generally you may only appeal from a final judgment of a court. However, if you did qualify for an interlocutory appeal from the Court of Federal Claims that too would go the Federal Circuit.
To remain on solid ground, I need confirmation or correction. Does the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case law equally apply to Federal Court of Claims when its an appeal from a denial of FRCP Rule 60(b)(6) catch all motion. see e.g., 138 F.3d 1363, 1370. I ask this question because according to 28 US.C 1346(a) vests both Courts with Tucker jurisdiction.
I'm not clear on what you are asking. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a) gives both the district courts and the Court of Federal Claims (CFC) jurisdiction in two types of cases: (1) federal tax refund cases and (2) non tort money claims against the United States that do not exceed $10,000. The case in 138 F3d that contains page 1363 would actually be United States v. Diaz, a criminal case and not applicable here. The one that contains page 1370 is Witter v. Delta Air lines, a case that raises no issues under FRCP Rule 60. So I have no idea what you are getting at with the case reference.
But if you litigate the case in the CFC then the case law that is binding precedent on the CFC are those cases from the Federal Circuit; all other circuit court cases would be persuasive case law. If you litigate it in district court, then it is the case law for the particular circuit in which the district court is located that supplies the binding precedent; all other circuit court cases (including the Federal Circuit) would be persuasive. That would include case law on FRCP Rule 60. This is why when I decide what court to recommend to a client for a federal tax refund case one of the things I look at is the case law in the Federal Circuit vs the case law for the circuit in which the district court is located. If they are different on something important to the case that would have an impact on the choice of forum.
The case in 138 F3d that contains page 1363 would actually be United States v. Diaz, a criminal case and not applicable here. The one that contains page 1370 is Witter v. Delta Air lines, a case that raises no issues under FRCP Rule 60. So I have no idea what you are getting at with the case reference.
I must have though I cited the right case. The correct citation is 198 F.3d 1363, 1370, its a patent case where the plaintiff filed a belated Rule 60(b) motion, the Circuit Court for the Federal Circuit found that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. The rule is the same but the circumstances are different, the motion was timely and supported grounds relief under the extraordinary circumstances catch all rule. But its not a district court case.
I must have though I cited the right case. The correct citation is 198 F.3d 1363﻿, 1370, its a patent case where the plaintiff filed a belated Rule 60(b) motion, the Circuit Court for the Federal Circuit found that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.
The key there is that it is a patent case. Appeals in patent cases must go to the Federal Circuit. So in patent cases the case law that is binding precedent for the district court are the cases from the Federal Circuit. That has nothing to do with cases under the Little Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)).
I understand that it was patent case, I was just beating my head against the wall, and I think it helped because I found 25 F.3d 1021, 1030, a FCL case stating that a rule 60(b) is to be liberally construed to do substantial justice. Hopefully I find something better in google scholar. case by case page by page.

References: §1292
 §1295
 § 1346
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1346