This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The court also issued three nonprecedential orders. All three orders ruled on to petitions for writs of mandamus to transfer cases out of the Western District of Texas. The court denied petitions in two of the orders, but granted the petition in one of the orders. Here are the introductions to the opinion and orders.
TRUSTID, Inc. v. Next Caller, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
TRUSTID, Inc. (“TRUSTID”), the owner of U.S. Patent No. 9,001,985 (“the ’985 patent”), appeals a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) determining that certain claims of the ’985 patent were shown to be unpatentable. Next Caller Inc. v. TRUSTID, Inc., No. IPR2019-00039 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2020), Paper No. 67, Corrected Non-Confidential Joint Appendix (“J.A.”) 1–92 (“Final Written Decision”). Next Caller, Inc. (“Next Caller”) cross-appeals the Board’s determination that other claims of the ’985 patent were not shown to be unpatentable. We affirm-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand. In particular, we affirm the Board’s decision finding claims 1– 7, 12–14, 16–18, and 22 of the ’985 patent unpatentable. However, because the Board did not adequately explain the reasoning for its non-obviousness determination as to claims 8–11, 19, and 20 of the ’985 patent, we vacate the Board’s decision with respect to those claims and remand for further proceedings.
In re G&H Diversified Manufacturing, LP (Nonprecedential Order)
G&H Diversified Manufacturing, LP (“G&H”) petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas to vacate its August 5, 2021, order denying transfer of the patent infringement claims brought against G&H to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH and DynaEnergetics U.S., Inc. (collectively, “Dyna”) oppose the petition.
* * *
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition is denied.
In re Google LLC (Nonprecedential Order)
Plaintiff Sonos, Inc., filed this patent infringement case against defendant Google LLC in the Waco Division of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Google moved to transfer the case to the Northern District of California. The district court denied the motion. The court first held that a forum selection clause in a 2013 agreement between the parties was inapplicable to the patent infringement action before it. The court then held that Google had failed to make a showing sufficient to justify transferring the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
Google now petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to transfer the case. We conclude that the district court’s refusal to transfer the case pursuant to section 1404(a) constituted a clear abuse of discretion. We therefore grant mandamus directing the court to transfer this case to the Northern District of California. Because we conclude that the district court misapplied the factors bearing on the transfer decision, it is unnecessary for us to address Google’s argument concerning the applicability of the forum selection clause in the 2013 agreement between the parties.
In re Intel Corp. (Nonprecedential Order)
Intel Corporation and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (Samsung) each petition this court for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas to transfer these related cases to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Demaray LLC opposes and moves for leave to file a sur-reply.
* * *
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The petitions are denied.
(2) The motion to file a sur-reply is denied.