United States Department of Commerce, Patent & Trademark Office v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 672 F.3d 1095

PTO petitions for review of FLRA's upholding of an arbitrator award in POPA v. PTO, challenging section A.2 of the Millennium Agreement.
An arbitrator held A.2 to be an
appropriate arrangement
and PTO purportedly repudiated it by failing to request OPM action.
PTO I (2005) held A.2 was not an arrangement because it mitigated effects of law rather than management rights.
Award II (2006) found A.2 an arrangement and the FLRA affirmed, leading PTO to seek review arguing collateral estoppel.
The issue on review centers on whether the FLRA was bound by its PTO I decision and whether its application of collateral estoppel was proper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Collateral estoppel bars finding A.2 an arrangement	PTO contends same issue litigated in PTO I and PTO II	FLRA/POPA argue no binding estoppel due to differing arbitrators	Yes; collateral estoppel applies and PTO wins

U.S. Dep't of Commerce v. Patent & Trademark Office, PTO I, 60 F.L.R.A. 839 (2005) (FLRA held A.2 not an arrangement)
Patent Office Prof'l Ass'n v. FLRA, PTO II, 65 F.L.R.A. 290 (2010) (FLRA upheld Arrigo's finding that A.2 was an arrangement)
Scott Air Force Base v. FLRA, 35 F.L.R.A. 978 (1990) (collateral estoppel framework in FLRA decisions)
Clark-Cowlitz Joint Operating Agency v. FERC, 826 F.2d 1074 (1987) (distinction between agency estoppel and preclusion)
United States Dept. of Energy v. FLRA, W. Area Power Admin., 56 F.L.R.A. 9 (2000) (treatment of collateral estoppel in admin actions)
U.S. Dep't of the Treasury v. FLRA, 670 F.3d 1315 (2012) (arbitrary/capricious review; precedent departure)