This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases appealed from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, a nonprecedential order denying a petition for writ of mandamus along with a concurring opinion by Judge Reyna, and one Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.
Carrum Technologies, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC (Nonprecedential)
Carrum Technologies, LLC (“Carrum”) appeals from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) holding claims 10 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 7,925,416 (“the ’416 patent”) unpatentable over the prior art. Unified Pats. Inc. v. Carrum Techs., LLC, No. IPR2019-00481, 2020 WL 4004893 (P.T.A.B. July 15, 2020). For the reasons explained below, we reverse.
C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Medline Industries, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
C.R. Bard, Inc. (“Bard”) appeals from four final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) holding that claims 1–2, 6–10, 16–19, 25–58, 60– 74, 76–90, and 92 of U.S. Patent 9,745,088 (“the ’088 patent”), claims 7–16 and 21–22 of U.S. Patent 9,808,596 (“the ’596 patent”), and claims 1–19 and 22–25 of U.S. Patent 9,795,761 (“the ’761 patent”) are not unpatentable as obvious. C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Medline Indus., Inc., No. IPR2019-00036, 2020 WL 1808196 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 8, 2020) (“Decision I”); C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Medline Indus., Inc., No. IPR2019-00035, 2020 WL 1808195 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 8, 2020) (“Decision II”); C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Medline Indus., Inc., No. IPR2019-00223, 2020 WL 2968717 (P.T.A.B. June 3, 2020) (“Decision III”); C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Medline Indus., Inc., No. IPR2019-00109, 2020 WL 2202164 (P.T.A.B. May 4, 2020) (“Decision IV”). For the reasons detailed below, we affirm-in-part, vacate in-part, and remand to the Board for further proceedings.
In re Dish Network L.L.C. (Nonprecedential Order)
DISH Network L.L.C. 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 District of Colorado. In particular, DISH argues that the district court here clearly erred in not weighing the willing witness factor more strongly in favor of transfer, weighing the local interest factor only as neutral, and weighing judicial-economy considerations here strongly in favor of retaining the case.
* * *
We do not view issuance of mandamus as needed here because we are confident the district court will reconsider its determination in light of the appropriate legal standard and precedent on its own. See In re Avantel, S.A., 343 F.3d 311, 324 (5th Cir. 2003). We therefore deny the petition for a writ of mandamus at this time. We expect, however, that the district court will expeditiously reconsider this matter before resolving substantive issues in the case. Any new petition for mandamus from the district court’s ruling on reconsideration will be considered on its own merit.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition is denied.
REYNA, Circuit Judge, concurring.
I concur with the denial of the petition for writ of mandamus. I write separately to express concern that the court grants a unique form of mandamus relief that I am not convinced is supported by precedent. In certain mandamus cases, this court has resolved an issue of first impression and accordingly vacated the district court’s opinion and remanded for reconsideration in light of the opinion. See, e.g., In re Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas, 605 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2020). But this is not a case of first impression. In other cases, we have identified a recent change in law or an applicable case apparently overlooked by the district court, denied the petition without prejudice to refiling, and invited the petitioner to seek the district court’s reconsideration in light of the case law we identified. See, e.g., In re Trend Micro Inc., 467 F. App’x 881, 882 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Cap. One Fin. Corp., 475 F. App’x 337, 338 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Hewlett-Packard Co., 471 F. App’x 898 (Fed. Cir. 2012). This case does not involve a recent change in law. The order we issue today is an amalgamation of the two kinds of relief, which could be referred to as Mandamus light. We deny the petition but explain errors in the district court’s decision and affirmatively instruct the district court to reconsider its decision in light of our discussion. This process seems more interlocutory than mandamus. I sense a need for caution lest we risk creating a new form of relief that is not the mandamus relief established in rule or precedent. Even here, I am dubious that the case we cite as a basis for reconsideration, In re Avantel, S.A., 343 F.3d 311 (5th Cir. 2003), directs us to require the district court’s reconsideration as we have done in this case.