Today the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case, one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, two nonprecedential opinions in veterans cases, one nonprecedential opinion in an appeal from the Court of Federal Claims, one nonprecedential order denying mandamus in a patent case, one erratum, and one Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of Rule 36 judgments.
B.E. Technology, LLC v. Facebook Inc. (Precedential)
B.E. Technology, L.L.C. (“B.E.”) appeals from a decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee affirming the Clerk’s Order finding Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) to be the prevailing party in their lawsuit and taxing $4,424.00 in costs against B.E. B.E. Tech., LLC v. Facebook, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-2769-JPM- TMP, 2018 WL 3825226, at *1 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 10, 2018) (“Decision”). For the reasons detailed below, we affirm.
Huang v. Huawei Technologies Co. (Nonprecedential)
Xiaohua Huang appeals a decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granting summary judgment in favor of Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (“Huawei”). See Huang v. Huawei Techs. Co., No. 16- CV-00947-JRG-RSP, 2019 WL 1246260 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 12, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, No. 16-CV- 00947-JRG-RSP, 2019 WL 1239433 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 18, 2019). Mr. Huang also appeals an order of the district court denying his motion to transfer. See J.A. 115–17. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Huang’s motion to transfer and because Mr. Huang’s claims are barred by claim preclusion and the Kessler doc- trine, we affirm.
Haynes v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)
Ricardo A. Haynes, proceeding pro se, appeals the de- termination of the United States Court of Appeals for Vet- erans Claims (Veterans Court) affirming the decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) denying Mr. Haynes’s claim for an increased disability rating. Because we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, we dismiss.
El Malik v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)
Veteran Rashid El Malik appeals the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) affirming the determination of the Board of Veterans’ Affairs (“Board”) that El Malik is not entitled to an earlier effective date or a higher disability rating for his service-connected disability. El Malik v. Wilkie, No. 16- 3770, 2018 WL 4941013 (Vet. App. Oct 12, 2018). For the reasons below, we lack jurisdiction over El Malik’s appeal and, therefore, dismiss.
Lummi Tribe v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation, Washington, and three Native American housing authorities appeal from an order of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing their case. Because the dismissal erroneously included claims that have not yet been adjudicated, we re- verse and remand.
In re Amazon.com, Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
Petitioners Amazon.com, Inc. et al. seek a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
The grant of mandamus is a discretionary and equitable remedy. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 381 (2004); United States v. Dern, 289 U.S. 352, 359 (1933). Petitioners have not made a compelling showing that the Eastern District of Virginia is a more convenient forum, particularly in light of the fact that no Petitioner is headquartered in that district and Petitioners fail to identify any of their own employees with relevant information who live in that district. The district court also considered and rejected Petitioners’ argument that judicial economy should weigh in favor of transfer based on VIS’s prior cases in the Eastern District of Virginia, and we are not prepared to disturb that determination on mandamus. In these circumstances, we find that mandamus is not an appropriate remedy.
IT IS ORDERED THAT: The petition is denied.
NeuroGrafix v. BrainLab, Inc. (Erratum)
Please make the following change:
On page 14, line 11: change “direct infringement case” to “direct infringement”.