This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a takings case, two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases, one nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus, and one nonprecedential erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions, the text of the order, and the text of the erratum.

Anaheim Gardens, L.P. v. United States (Precedential)

These cases involve takings claims resulting from the enactment of the Emergency Low Income Housing Preservation Act of 1987, Pub. L. No. 100-242, § 202, 101 Stat. 1877 (1988) (“ELIHPA”) and the Low-Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-625, 104 Stat. 4249 (1990) (“LIHPRHA”) (collectively, the “Preservation Statutes”). Currently, approximately fifty plaintiffs are asserting takings claims in consolidated cases in the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”). The appellants here are Buckman Gardens L.P. (“Buckman”), Chauncy House Company (“Chauncy”), Cedar Gardens Associates (“Cedar”), Rock Creek Terrace L.P. (“Rock Creek”), 620 Su Casa Por Cortez (“Su Casa”), and 3740 Silverlake Village, L.P. (“Silverlake”). The six appellants have been designated the First Wave Plaintiffs (“FWPs”) in the Claims Court litigation. The Claims Court granted summary judgment in favor of the government on all six FWPs’ takings claims. Anaheim Gardens v. United States, 140 Fed. Cl. 72 (2018) (“Decision”). For the reasons below, we affirm the Claims Court’s judgment with respect to Su Casa but we vacate and remand with respect to the other five FWPs.

Lone Star Silicon Innovations LLC v. Iancu (Nonprecedential)

Lone Star Silicon Innovations LLC (“Lone Star”) appeals from the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) holding claims 2 and 7 of U.S. Patent 6,388,330 (the “’330 patent”) unpatentable as obvious. For the reasons described below, we affirm.

Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Amneal Pharms. LLC (Nonprecedential)

Appellees Galderma Laboratories, L.P., Nestle Skin Health S.A., and TCD Royalty Sub LLC (collectively, Galderma) sued Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC and Amneal Pharmaceuticals Co. (I) Pvt. Ltd. (n/k/a Amneal Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.) (collectively, Amneal) for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,206,740, 8,394,405, and 8,470,364 (collectively, the Chang Patents) and U.S. Patent Nos. 8,603,506 and 9,241,946 (collectively, the Ashley II Patents). The Chang and Ashley II Patents relate to low-dose doxycycline formulations to treat, among other diseases, acne or rosacea. Following a bench trial, the district court found that Amneal’s product infringes the asserted claims under the doctrine of equivalents. Amneal appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the district court’s judgment as to infringement of the Chang Patents and reverse the district court’s judgment as to infringement of the Ashley II Patents.

In re Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)

Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. and Sprouts Farmers Market Texas, LP (collectively, “Sprouts”) petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to direct the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas to grant their motion to stay proceedings. Motion Offense, LLC opposes.

Motion Offense has sued Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. and its Austin, Texas based subsidiary in the Western District of Texas, asserting that Sprouts’ use of Dropbox, Inc.’s software infringes two patents. A month after Motion Offense filed this complaint, Dropbox filed its own suit against Motion Offense in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, seeking declaratory judgments that the same Dropbox software product does not directly or indirectly infringe the same asserted patents.

Sprouts moved the Western District of Texas to stay proceedings pending the outcome of Dropbox’s suit based on the principles underlying the so-called “customer-suit exception.” The Western District of Texas denied the motion. Sprouts then filed this petition seeking to compel a stay. After the petition was filed, the District of Delaware, pending the resolution of Sprouts’ petition, has decided to transfer the Dropbox case to the Western District of Texas so that both suits could be resolved by one court.

Only exceptional circumstances, amounting to a clear abuse of discretion or judicial usurpation of power, will justify the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. In re Cordis Corp., 769 F.2d 733, 736 (Fed. Cir. 1985). We are not prepared to say that Sprouts has met that very demanding standard here. With the Dropbox case now also in the Western District of Texas, there is no longer the concern of having two different courts adjudicating the same issues with the risk of reaching inconsistent judgments.

Although we deny Sprouts’ petition for mandamus relief, now that both related cases are in the Western District of Texas, we expect the district court to consider whether the most efficient resolution entails staying or consolidating at least some of the underlying proceedings.

IT IS ORDERED THAT: The petition is denied.

Ricci v. MSPB (Nonprecedential Erratum)

Please make the following change:
Page 8, line 16, change “2018” to “2008.”