This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent infringement case, affirming a denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of standing over a dissent by Judge Newman. The court also issued a nonprecedential order granting a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Western District of Texas to transfer a case to the Central District of California. Here are the introductions to the opinion and order.
Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Precedential)
In this certified interlocutory appeal, Apple seeks to overturn the denial of its motion to dismiss Omni MedSci’s (“Omni”) patent infringement complaint for lack of standing. For the reasons below, we affirm the district court’s holding that the University of Michigan (“UM”) bylaws did not effectuate a present automatic assignment of Dr. Islam’s patent rights and therefore affirm the district court’s denial of Apple’s motion to dismiss.
NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
This certified question arises from the suit by Omni MedSci, Inc. (“Omni”) against Apple Inc. for patent infringement. Apple presented the defense that Omni does not own the patents in suit because the inventor, Mohammed Islam, is an employee of the University of Michigan, and his employment agreement requires that his inventions and patents are the property of the University. Thus Apple argued that Omni does not have standing to sue for infringement. The district court held that Omni has standing to sue and my colleagues agree. I respectfully dissent for these patents are the property of the University.
In re Hulu, LLC (Nonprecedential Order)
Hulu, LLC petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. We agree with Hulu that the district court clearly abused its discretion in evaluating Hulu’s transfer motion and denying transfer. We therefore grant the petition.