This morning, the Federal Circuit issued three nonprecedential opinions: two in patent cases and one in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Additionally, the court issued an order transferring a petition for a writ of mandamus to the Eleventh Circuit. Finally, the court issued one Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions of the opinions, text from the order, and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.
Infineum USA L.P. v. Chevron Oronite Co. (Nonprecedential)
Infineum USA L.P. appeals from the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 6,723,685 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The ’685 patent claims cover lubricating oil compositions and their use in internal combustion engines. Because substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination of obviousness, we affirm.
In re CSP Technologies, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
CSP Technologies, Inc. appeals from the final decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirming the rejection of certain claims in U.S. Patent Application No. 12/992,749 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The rejected claims recite a moisture-tight, resealable container for storing diagnostic test strips. Because substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination of obviousness, we affirm.
Searcy v. Department of Agriculture (Nonprecedential)
Andrew Searcy, Jr., petitions for review of the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) that dismissed his appeal for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and as precluded by the doctrine of res judicata. See Searcy v. Dep’t of Agric., No. AT-1221-17- 0227-W-1 (M.S.P.B. Mar. 16, 2017). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
In re James (Nonprecedential Order)
Calvin B. James petitions for a writ of mandamus granting his “release from custody.” Pet. at 4. We consider whether to transfer his petition to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Mr. James recently filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, which was transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, where it appears to remain pending. See James v. Warden, FFC Coleman—USP I, No. 20-cv-00218 (S.D. Ga.).
The All Writs Act provides that the federal courts “may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). As that statute makes clear, however, the Act is not itself a grant of jurisdiction. See Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529, 534–35 (1999). It confines issuing such relief only in cases that would fall within this court’s limited jurisdiction, which does not include jurisdiction over the habeas corpus matter or any related criminal case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1295. Because the appropriate regional circuit, here the Eleventh Circuit, would have jurisdiction over any appeal from Mr. James’s habeas action, we will transfer the case to that court.
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition is transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 to the Eleventh Circuit.