This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and two nonprecedential opinions in employment cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court also issued two nonprecedential orders. In the first order, the court denied a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to vacate an order transferring a patent case from the District of Colorado to the Western District of Texas. In the second order, the court granted a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Western District of Texas to transfer a patent case. Finally, the Federal Circuit released three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders and links to the Rule 36 judgments.
Apple Inc. v. Qaulcomm Inc. (Precedential)
Apple Inc. (“Apple”) appeals four decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) determining that claims of patents owned by Qualcomm Inc. (“Qualcomm”) weren’t proven unpatentable. This is the second such dispute to reach us since these parties settled all their patentinfringement litigation worldwide and entered a global patent license agreement. In the first, we dismissed because Apple lacked Article III standing before this court. Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., 992 F.3d 1378, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“Apple I”). Along the way, Apple I foresaw that the standing issue “impacts . . . other appeals.” Id. at 1382. Confronted here with identical operative facts, we do no more than follow in the wake of Apple I. We dismiss.
Courtney v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Nonprecedential)
Kathy Courtney seeks review of a decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) affirming her removal from federal service for being absent without leave from March 25, 2019, to December 7, 2019. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the Board’s decision.
Courtney v. Office of Personnel Management (Nonprecedential)
Kathy Courtney seeks review of a decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) affirming a decision by the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) denying her application for disability retirement under the Federal Employees Retirement System (“FERS”). The Board, in reviewing OPM’s decision, agreed that Ms. Courtney had not met one of the requirements for disability retirement: that the applicant’s disability makes it impossible for the applicant to render useful and efficient service. As explained below, we affirm.
In re XConnect, LLC (Nonprecedential Order)
XConnect, LLC petitions for a writ of mandamus to vacate the order of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado transferring this case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and to re-transfer the case back to the District of Colorado. DynaEnergetics US, Inc., DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH, and DMC Global Inc. (collectively, DynaEnergetics) oppose. We deny the petition.
In re Quest Diagnostics Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated 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. Ravgen, Incorporated opposes. Because we find the district court clearly abused its discretion in evaluating the transfer motion, we grant the petition and direct the district court to transfer.