This morning the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a Merit Systems Protection Board case, one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, and one nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus related to a motion to transfer. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the text of the order.
Green-Doyle v. Department of Homeland Security (Nonprecedential)
Petitioner T’Nora Scott Green-Doyle seeks review of a Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”) final decision sustaining her removal from Respondent Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). See Green-Doyle v. DHS, No. DC-0432-18-0711-I-1, 2019 WL 1780468 (M.S.P.B. Apr. 18, 2019) (S.A. 5–36). Because Ms. Green-Doyle presents us with a “mixed case” involving an action against DHS appealable to the MSPB and an affirmative defense of discrimination, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
PalTalk Holdings, Inc. v. Riot Games, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
PalTalk Holdings, Inc., appeals four final written decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in inter partes review proceedings related to U.S. Patent Nos. 5,822,523 and 6,226,686. The Board concluded that all challenged claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the cited prior art. See Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., No. IPR2018-00129, Paper 37, at 66 (P.T.A.B. May 14, 2019); Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., No. IPR2018-00130, Paper 37, at 72 (P.T.A.B. May 14, 2019); Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., No. IPR2018-00131, Paper 37, at 50 (P.T.A.B. May 14, 2019); Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., No. IPR2018-00132, Paper 36, at 66 (P.T.A.B. May 14, 2019).
PalTalk timely appealed. PalTalk challenges the Board’s obviousness determination only with respect to certain dependent claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
Because we conclude that the Board’s obviousness determination is supported by substantial evidence and because we detect no legal error in the Board’s analysis, we affirm.
In re Apple (Nonprecedential Order)
Apple Inc. petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas to direct transfer of this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. STC.UNM opposes the petition. Apple replies. For the following reasons, we deny Apple’s petition.