This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, one nonprecedential order, and one Rule 36 judgment. The precedential opinion affirms a sua sponte order of the District of Delaware ordering a witness to appear in person for testimony regarding potential fraud on the court. The first nonprecedential opinion affirms in part and dismisses in part a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The second affirms a judgment of the District of Utah in a patent infringement case, while the third affirms a judgment of the Northern District of Georgia in a related case based on collateral estoppel. The fourth affirms a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The order is a denial of a petition for a writ of mandamus. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the order and Rule 36 judgment.
Backertop Licensing LLC v. Canary Connect, Inc. (Precedential)
Backertop Licensing LLC and Lori LaPray appeal the U.S. District Court of Delaware’s sua sponte order requiring Ms. LaPray to appear in-person before the District Court for testimony regarding potential fraud on the court, as well as the District Court’s order of monetary sanctions against Ms. LaPray for subsequently failing to appear. Because these orders were within the District Court’s inherent authority and were not abuses of discretion, we affirm the District Court.
DeFlanders v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
Darren L. DeFlanders appeals a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm-in-part and dismiss-in-part.
Khan v. Merit Medical Systems, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Nazir Khan, owner of a patent directed to an arteriovenous shunt with several parts, filed a patent infringement suit against Merit Medical Systems, Inc. (“Merit Medical”) in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. Merit Medical counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The district court granted judgment for Merit Medical and against Khan. Khan appeals. We affirm.
Khan v. Artivion, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Nazir Khan, owner of U.S. Patent No. 8,747,344 (“’344 patent”), filed a complaint against Artivion, Inc. (“Artivion”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (the “Georgia Action”). Khan alleged that a product made by Artivion, the “HeRO Graft,” a device used for hemodialysis, infringed claims of the ’344 patent literally, under the doctrine of equivalents, and also under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), governing means-plus-function claiming. On the same day, Khan filed suit against another company, Merit Medical, Inc. (“Merit Medical”), on the same causes of action, in the United States District Court for the District of Utah (the “Utah Action”). Merit Medical had purchased the HeRO product line from Artivion. Khan’s complaint in the Georgia Action, therefore, was based on alleged infringement by the same product accused of infringing the same claims in the Utah Action. After the district court entered judgment of non-infringement for Merit Medical in the Utah Action, the court in the Georgia Action granted Artivion’s motion to dismiss based on the collateral estoppel effect of the Utah Action judgment.
Payne v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
Joseph Payne appeals a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board that dismissed his Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) claim as barred by the doctrine of laches. See Payne v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. PH-3443-21-0363-I-1, 2023 WL 4359452 (M.S.P.B. July 5, 2023) (Board Decision). For the following reasons, we affirm.
In re Brenner (Nonprecedential Order)
Lawrence Brenner petitions for a writ of mandamus asking this court to vacate the Merit Systems Protection Board’s April 2, 2024 remand order and to direct the Board to issue a new remand decision. . . . Mandamus is “reserved for extraordinary situations,” Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988) (citation omitted). To obtain mandamus, the petitioner must show: (1) there are no adequate alternative avenues for relief, (2) the right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable, and (3) issuance of the writ is appropriate under the circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004). Mr. Brenner has not met that demanding standard.