Today the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and three nonprecedential orders. The first opinion affirms a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the second affirms a judgment of the Western District of Texas in a patent case. Two of the orders transfer appeals, and one dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders and a link to the dismissal.
Leica Microsystems, Inc. v. Regents of the University of Michigan (Nonprecedential)
Leica Microsystems, Inc. (“Leica”) appeals from a final written decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) holding that Leica failed to show that claims 1–26 of U.S. Patent 7,277,169 (the “’169 patent”) were unpatentable as obvious. See Leica Microsys. Inc. v. Regents of the Univ. of Mich., No. IPR2020-01165, Paper No. 26 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 7, 2022), J.A. 1–27 (“Decision”). For the reasons provided below, we affirm.
Canopy Growth Corp. v. GW Pharma Ltd. (Nonprecedential)
Canopy Growth Corp. sued GW Pharma Ltd. and GW Research Ltd. (collectively, GW) in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleging infringement of at least claims 1–25 of its U.S. Patent No. 10,870,632. The district court issued an order construing the sole disputed claim limitation: “CO2 in liquefied form under subcritical pressure and temperature conditions.” Canopy Growth Corp. v. GW Pharmaceuticals PLC, No. 20- cv-01180, 2021 WL 8015834, at *4–15 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 27, 2021). Based on the district court’s construction, the parties stipulated to non-infringement, and the court then entered final judgment in favor of GW on infringement and dismissed GW’s remaining affirmative defenses and counterclaims without prejudice. Canopy appeals. Because the phrase “subcritical pressure and temperature conditions,” as used in the claims here, requires both pressure and temperature to be subcritical, we affirm.
Cole v. Gonce (Nonprecedential Order)
This is an appeal from a civil action asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of Nicholas Cole’s constitutional rights. Radames Gonce and Sloane Porto move with consent to transfer the appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, stating that Mr. Cole filed his appeal with this court in error. We agree that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, see 28 U.S.C. § 1295, and that it would be in the interest of justice to transfer the appeal to the Second Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The motion to transfer is granted. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, this case and all transmittals are transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Williams v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Nonprecedential Order)
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the “Commissioner”) moves unopposed to transfer this appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Derek Jason Williams filed a notice of appeal to this court from a decision by the United States Tax Court. But “[t]he United States Courts of Appeals (other than the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) shall have exclusive jurisdiction to review the decisions of the Tax Court,” 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). Where we lack jurisdiction, we “shall, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer” the appeal to an appropriate court. 28 U.S.C. § 1631. The Commissioner identifies the Fourth Circuit as the appropriate court to review the appealed decision. See § 7482(b)(1)(A).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The motion is granted. The appeal and all its filings are transmitted to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.