"Under the doctrine of the law of the case, `a court will generally refuse to reopen or reconsider what has already been decided at an earlier stage of the litigation.'" Augustine v. Principi, 343 F.3d 1334, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (quoting Suel, 192 F.3d at 985); Gould, Inc. v. United States, 67 F.3d 925, 930 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ("`The law of the case is a judicially created doctrine, the purposes of which are to prevent the relitigation of issues that have been decided and to ensure that trial courts follow the decisions of appellate courts.'") (quoting Jamesbury Corp. v. Litton Indus. Prods., Inc., 839 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 828, 109 S.Ct. 80, 102 L.Ed.2d 57 (1988), overruled on other grounds, A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Constr. Co., 960 F.2d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). However, the "law of the case" doctrine means different things in different contexts:

We have jurisdiction to review the Veterans Court's interpretation of regulations. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c); Augustine v. Principi, 343 F.3d 1334, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2003). On appeal, Mr. Barry presents a pure legal argument about the interpretation of 38 C.F.R. § 3.350(f)(3) relied upon by the Veterans Court.

"Under the doctrine of the law of the case, 'a court will generally refuse to reopen or reconsider what has already been decided at an earlier stage of the litigation.'" Augustine v. Principi, 343 F.3d 1334, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (quoting Suel, 192 F.3d at 985); Gould, Inc. v. United States, 67 F.3d 925, 930 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ("The law of the case is a judicially created doctrine, the purposes of which are to prevent the relitigation of issues that have been decided and to ensure that trial courts follow the decisions of appellate courts.'") (quoting Jamesbury Corp. v. Litton Indus. Prods., Inc., 839 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 828, 109 S.Ct. 80, 102 L.Ed.2d 57 (1988), overruled on other grounds, A. C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Constr. Co., 960 F.2d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).

"Under the doctrine of law of the case, 'a court will generally refuse to reopen or reconsider what has already been decided at an earlier stage of the litigation.'" Augustine v. Principi, 343 F.3d 1334, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (quoting Suel v. Sec'y of Health Human Serv., 192 F.3d 981, 985 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); see also Stockton E. Water Dist. v. United States, 62 Fed. Cl. 379, 393 (2004). In Suel, our appellate authority explained:

In briefing on the pending motions and at oral argument, the parties acknowledge that the court's decision on the temporary takings issue in Cane III disposes of the parties' temporary takings claim under the law of the case doctrine. Transcript of Oral Argument on May 11, 2004 at 4-5 (Tr.); Def.'s MSJ at 37-38; see Pls.' Cross-Motion at 1-2; see also Augustine v. Principi, 343 F.3d 1334, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (stating that "[u]nder the doctrine of law of the case, 'a court will generally refuse to reopen or reconsider what has already been decided at an earlier stage of the litigation'" (quoting Suel v. Sec'y of Health Human Servs., 192 F.3d 981, 985 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).

" Plaintiff's Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and for Leave to Take the Videotaped Deposition of Former HUD Secretary Cuomo and His Aide, Howard Glaser at 4. Plaintiff relies on language in this Court's October 13, 1999 order (Energy Capital Corp. v. United States, No. 97-293, Order of October 13, 1999 (hereinafter "October 13 Order")) and October 25, 1999 unpublished opinion (hereinafter "October 25 Opinion") that held, among other things, that "as a legal matter, these two allegations [the false and defamatory pleading allegedly sent by Glaser and the threatening phone call by Cuomo], if proven, are sufficient to establish the Government's bad faith during litigation itself." October 13 Order. The Defendant disputes this assertion, and relies on Augustine v. Principi, 343 F.3d 1334, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003), for the proposition that to be the "law of the case," an issue must have "actually been decided." By the Government's reasoning, because the October 25 Opinion "was not entered in response to a motion for attorney's fees, but rather in response to the Government's motion for a protective order," it is not a final judgment on that issue.