This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion affirming a decision to unseal an amended complaint in a patent case, a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case affirming a denial of a motion to compel arbitration, and a precedential order dismissing an appeal and denying mandamus with respect to a denial of institution of an inter partes review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The court also issued a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order, and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.
Defendant Veterinary Orthopedic Implants, Inc. (“VOI”) appeals an order of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Over VOI’s objection, the district court directed the clerk to unseal the amended complaint of Plaintiffs DePuy Synthes Products, Inc. and DePuy Synthes Sales, Inc. (collectively “DePuy”). Because we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in performing its obligation to ensure public
access to court documents, we affirm.
Cajun Services Unlimited, LLC v. Benton Energy Service Co. (Nonprecedential)
Benton Energy Service Company (BESCO) appeals the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana’s denial of its motion to compel arbitration. Because the district court did not err in concluding that BESCO waived its right to compel arbitration of the claims at issue, we affirm.
Mylan Laboratories Ltd. v. Janssen Pharmaceutica, N.V. (Precedential Order)
Mylan Laboratories Ltd. appeals a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) decision that denied institution of inter partes review (IPR) for U.S. Patent No. 9,439,906. Mylan Labs. Ltd. v. Janssen Pharmaceutica, N.V., No. IPR2020-00440, 2020 WL 5580472 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 16, 2020) (Board Decision). It also seeks mandamus relief. Janssen, the patent owner, moves to dismiss Mylan’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Patent Office) intervened and supports Janssen’s motion. Because we lack jurisdiction over appeals from decisions denying institution, we grant Janssen’s motion to dismiss. Although we have jurisdiction over mandamus petitions challenging such decisions, Mylan has not shown it is entitled to such an extraordinary remedy. Thus, we dismiss Mylan’s appeal and deny its request for mandamus.