This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, two nonprecedential orders, and three Rule 36 judgments. In the precedential opinion, the court affirmed a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In the nonprecedential opinions, the court affirmed a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board and vacated in part and affirmed in part a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims. In the nonprecedential orders, the Federal Circuit denied a petition for a writ of mandamus to order transfer in a patent case and granted a motion to dismiss an appeal in another patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the orders, and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v. ModernaTx, Inc. (Precedential)

Appellant Arbutus Biopharma Corporation appeals a final written decision in an inter partes proceeding of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that found claims 1–22 of U.S. Patent No. 9,404,127 invalid as anticipated. On appeal, Arbutus Biopharma Corporation challenges the Board’s anticipation finding. We affirm. In the first nonprecedential order, the Federal Circuit denied a petition for a writ of mandamus in a case appealed from the Eastern District of Texas. In the second nonprecedential order, the Federal Circuit,

Skrettas v. Department of Veterans Affairs (Nonprecedential)

George D. Skrettas, formerly a Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) employee, seeks review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”) denying relief in relevant part for alleged retaliation in response to whistleblowing. We affirm.

Tindall v. United States (Nonprecedential)

James W. Tindall appeals a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) dismissing his case for lack of jurisdiction. Because the Claims Court wrongly decided that lack of ripeness deprived it of jurisdiction, and failed to assess whether it lacked jurisdiction by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1500, we vacate in part and remand. We affirm the Claims Court’s denial of Mr. Tindall’s motion for sanctions.

In re TP-Link Technologies Co., Ltd. (Nonprecedential Order)

TP-Link Technologies Co., Ltd. and TP-Link Corp. Ltd. (collectively, “TP-Link”), the defendants in this patent infringement suit, petition for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to grant TP-Link’s motion to transfer this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. . . . [W]e cannot say that TP-Link has made such a showing here, given the fact that none of the defendants is located in the transferee forum and TPLink’s motion failed to identify any specific TP-Link USA employees as potential witnesses.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The petition is denied.

Vroom, Inc. v. Sidekick Technology, LLC (Nonprecedential Order)

Vroom, Inc. et al. (collectively, “Vroom”) move to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Sidekick Technology, LLC opposes the motion. . . . Here, while the district court is correct that its order granting Vroom’s motion for judgment on the pleadings necessarily resolved Vroom’s claims for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, see TypeRight Keyboard Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 374 F.3d 1151, 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[A] judgment of invalidity necessarily moots the issue of infringement.”), at least Vroom’s request for injunctive relief remains pending, rendering this appeal premature. . . . We therefore grant the motion to dismiss and expect the parties and the district court to promptly resolve the outstanding request for relief.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted to the extent that the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, subject to reinstatement under the same docket number without the payment of an additional filing fee if, within 60 days of the date of filing of this order, Sidekick appeals from a final judgment entered on the entire case or a judgment entered under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

Rule 36 Judgments