This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions: one in a patent case appealed from a district court and the other in a veteran’s case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The court also issued two nonprecedential orders denying petitions for writs of mandamus: one regarding a stay of execution of a judgment in a patent case and the other regarding a motion to dismiss or transfer a patent case from the Western District of Texas to the Eastern District of Michigan. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.
Corus Realty Holdings, Inc. v. Zillow Group, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Appellant appeals a decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granting Zillow Group, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment that Zillow did not infringe Appellant’s patent. Corus claims that the district court erred in granting summary judgment of noninfringement based on incorrect claim constructions and that the court erred in striking portions of its expert witness report. We affirm.
Cormier v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
Arthur P. Cormier appeals the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) in Cormier v. Wilkie, No. 19-5151 (Vet. App. Jan. 13, 2020), J.A. 1. In its decision, the Veterans Court affirmed the June 27, 2019 decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) that denied Mr. Cormier benefits for myelodysplastic syndrome (“MDS”), also claimed as leukemia, from exposure to herbicides. Id. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.
In Re Opticurrent, LLC (Nonprecedential Order)
Opticurrent, LLC petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to vacate its stay of the execution of the underlying judgment. Power Integrations, Inc. opposes the petition. Opticurrent replies.
* * *
Opticurrent cites In re Zapata Gulf Marine Corp., 941 F.2d 293 (5th Cir. 1991), to support its view that the district court erred in granting a stay. But we apply Ninth Circuit law to this issue in this case and Zapata is not governing Ninth Circuit law. See Tennant Co. v. Hako Minuteman, Inc., 878 F.2d 1413, 1416 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (stating we apply “the law of the regional circuit to which district court appeals normally lie, unless the issue pertains to or is unique to patent law”). Furthermore, Zapata does not clearly establish error here. It is true that the Fifth Circuit in Zapata held that a district court could not stay the final judgment when only a Rule 60 ruling was on appeal. However, Zapata was premised on a prior version of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62. That version of the rule specified that “[w]hen an appeal is taken the appellant by giving a supersedeas bond may obtain a stay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d) (1991). The Fifth Circuit found that the language of the old Rule 62(d) required that the judgment being stayed also be the one on appeal. See Zapata, 941 F.2d at 295 (“Clearly the ‘stay’ to which the rule refers is of the judgment being appealed.”). The current Rule 62(b), enacted in 2018, does not tie the stay to an appeal and is thus sufficiently different such that Opticurrent’s argument based on Zapata is not indisputable.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition is denied.
In Re: Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas to dismiss or to transfer to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Alternatively, Volkswagen seeks to stay all deadlines unrelated to venue until the district court rules on the pending motion to dismiss or transfer.
* * *
Volkswagen has not shown that it is unable to obtain a ruling on its venue motion in a timely fashion without mandamus. The district court has indicated that it will resolve that motion before it conducts a Markman hearing in this case. Nor has Volkswagen presently shown a clear legal right to stay all non-venue-related deadlines. We note, however, that the district court’s failure to issue a ruling on Volkswagen’s venue motion before a Markman hearing may alter our assessment of the mandamus factors.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition is denied.