This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. In it, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that specific patent claims are unpatentable as obvious, the sale of a generic product would not induce infringement of the patents, and the sale of the generic product would not directly infringe other patents. Notably, Judge Newman dissented without opinion. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders. One transfers an appeal to the Northern District of Georgia, and one denies a motion to dismiss and instead transfers an appeal to the Northern District of Ohio. Here is the introduction to the opinion and text from the orders.
Genentech, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. (Precedential)
Genentech, Inc. and InterMune, Inc. (collectively, “Genentech”) appeal from a decision of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware holding that: (1) the claims of its Liver Function Test (“LFT”) patents are unpatentable as obvious, (2) sale of Sandoz Inc.’s and Lek Pharmaceuticals, D.D.’s (collectively, “Sandoz’s”) generic product would not induce infringement of the LFT patents, and (3) sale of Sandoz’s generic product would not directly infringe Genentech’s Drug-Drug Interaction (“DDI”) patents. See Genentech, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 19-0078, 2022 WL 842957 (D. Del. Mar. 22, 2022) (“Decision”). We affirm.
Thurman v. United States Postal Service (Nonprecedential Order)
Having considered the parties’ responses to the court’s order to show cause, the court now transfers this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
Gary L. Thurman appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board, challenging his removal from the United States Postal Service. Before the Board, Mr. Thurman argued that the Postal Service violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After the Board issued its final decision affirming the agency’s removal action, Mr. Thurman filed this petition to review that decision. Mr. Thurman states that he wishes to continue to pursue his Title VII claim, ECF No. 3 at 2; ECF No. 6; ECF No. 12.
Although this court has jurisdiction to review certain decisions of the Board, in cases involving agency actions appealable to the Board and alleged to be based on Title VII discrimination, the appropriate forum for review is the district court. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2) (listing cases of discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964); Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 137 S. Ct. 1975, 1985 (2017). Here, there appears to be no dispute that Mr. Thurman raised a discrimination claim before the Board, even though the Board declined to consider it on the grounds that it was unduly vague and not raised before the administrative judge.
This court, under 28 U.S.C. § 1631, may, if in the interest of justice, transfer a case to another court where it “could have been brought at the time it was filed.” Here, the Postal Service asserts without contradiction that court is the Northern District of Georgia. While the Postal Service urges dismissal over transfer, contending that Mr. Thurman’s discrimination claim “is arguably frivolous,” ECF No. 13-1 at 9, we deem it the better course to transfer to allow the district court to consider any argument on the merits.
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, this case and all transmittals are transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
Obot v. Department of Defense (Nonprecedential Order)
The Department of Defense (“the agency”) moves to dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. Godwin Obot has not responded.
Mr. Obot appealed his removal from the agency to the Merit Systems Protection Board, alleging discrimination as an affirmative defense. After the administrative judge issued an initial decision affirming the agency’s removal, Mr. Obot petitioned the Board for review. On July 7, 2022, the Board issued its final decision denying the petition and affirming the administrative judge’s decision. This court received Mr. Obot’s petition for review on September 7, 2022. His submissions before this court indicate that he wishes to continue to pursue his discrimination claims. See ECF No. 11 at 2–3; ECF No. 10.
We agree with the agency that this court lacks jurisdiction over this case. Where, as here, certain types of discrimination claims were asserted before the Board and the petitioner seeks judicial review of such claims, the appropriate forum for review is federal district court. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2); Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 137 S. Ct. 1975, 1985 (2017). Although the agency urges dismissal over transfer, we deem it appropriate to transfer, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio and for that court to address any issues concerning timeliness.
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motion to dismiss, ECF No. 14, is denied.
(2) This case and all pending motions and other transmittals are transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.