This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case and three nonprecedential orders in a veterans case and two patent cases. Here are the introductions to the opinion and orders.

Fiber, LLC v. Ciena Corp. (Nonprecedential)

Fiber, LLC (“Fiber”) appeals from a stipulated judgment of invalidity and noninfringement entered by the United States District Court for the District of Colorado in favor of Ciena Corporation, Ciena Communications, Inc., Finisar Corporation, Viavi Solutions Inc., f/k/a JDS Uniphase Corporation, Lumentum Holdings, Inc., Lumentum Inc., Lumentum Operations, LLC, and Nokia of America Corporation, f/k/a Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc. (collectively, “Appellees”), following claim construction of U.S. Patent No. 7,095,917 (“the ’917 patent”). For the reasons explained below, we affirm.

Lawson v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)

In a Joint Status Report submitted on March 29, 2019, the parties expressed their views regarding the impact of Procopio v. Wilkie, 913 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2019), on this case. Following Procopio, Congress enacted, and the President signed, the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act of 2019 (Pub. L. No. 116-23, 133 Stat. 966 (2019) (“the Act”)). We now remand for determination of Mr. Lawson’s entitlement to the presumption of service connection.

In re Extreme Technologies, LLC (Nonprecedential)

Extreme Technologies, LLC petitions for a writ of mandamus that would direct intra-district transfer from Judge Lynn N. Hughes to Judge Alfred H. Bennett, both of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Stabil Drill Specialties, L.L.C. opposes the petition. Extreme replies.

* * *

Judge Bennett did not violate any clear and indisputable authority in transferring this case to Judge Hughes. To the extent that Extreme believed Judge Hughes exceeded his authority in issuing his initial order, it could have timely appealed from that decision but elected not to do so. Under the circumstances, granting this extraordinary relief would not be appropriate.

In re Huang (Nonprecedential)

Xiaohua Huang petitions this court for a writ of mandamus seeking sanctions against Nephos Inc., reversal of the district court’s order striking his infringement contentions, and issuance of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Nephos.

* * *

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, available only where the petitioner shows: (1) a clear and indisputable right to relief; (2) there are no adequate alternative legal channels through which he may obtain that relief; and (3) the grant of mandamus is appropriate under the circumstances. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004). Mr. Huang has not shown entitlement to relief. Mr. Huang may directly appeal the district court’s denial of his request for sanctions and any interlocutory ruling now that the district court has entered a final judgment in the case. Mr. Huang can also raise his arguments concerning the denial of his request for preliminary injunctive relief in Appeal No. 2020-1019. He therefore clearly has alternative means to obtain relief.