Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and two nonprecedential orders. Both nonprecedential opinions come in patent cases. Of the nonprecedential orders, one dismisses a petition for a writ of mandamus and the other grants and denies several motions. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders other than the dismissal as well as a link to the dismissal.
Recor Medical, Inc. v. Medtronic Ireland Manufacturing Unlimited Co. (Nonprecedential)
Recor Medical, Inc. and Otsuka Medical Devices Co. Ltd. (collectively, “Recor”) appeal the final written decision of an inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,845,629 (“the ’629 patent”), holding all challenged claims were not shown unpatentable. Recor Med., Inc. v. Medtronic Ir. Mfg. Unlimited Co., No. IPR2022-00431, 2023 WL 5167837, at *16 (P.T.A.B. July 14, 2023) (“Final Written Decision”). We vacate and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Roland Corp. v. inMusic Brands, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Roland Corporation (Roland or Roland Japan) sued inMusic Brands, Inc. (inMusic) for infringement of eight patents relating to electronic drums and electronic cymbals: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,385,135 (’135 patent), 6,921,857 (’857 patent), 6,756,535 (’535 patent), 6,271,458 (’458 patent), 6,121,538 (’538 patent), 6,881,885 (’885 patent), 6,632,989 (’989 patent), and 7,459,626 (’626 patent) (collectively, Asserted Patents). After construing disputed claim terms, the district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement of four of the Asserted Patents. The remaining four patents proceeded to a jury trial. After the district court denied inMusic’s pre-trial and mid-trial Daubert motions to exclude or strike the infringement testimony of Roland’s technical expert, the jury found all claims asserted at trial infringed and not invalid. The jury awarded damages to Roland in the form of both lost profits and reasonable royalties. After trial, the district court denied (1) inMusic’s motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) or a new trial on liability and damages, and (2) inMusic’s motion to bar Roland’s claims for infringement of the electronic cymbal patents due to equitable estoppel. inMusic appeals. The district court also denied Roland’s motion to amend the judgment to add prejudgment interest. Roland cross-appeals, challenging (1) the denial of prejudgment interest, and (2) the district court’s claim construction and grant of summary judgment of noninfringement. The latter portion of Roland’s cross-appeal is contingent on vacatur or reversal of the judgment of liability.
For the following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate in part, dismiss in part, and remand. Regarding inMusic’s appeal, we affirm the decision to not exclude or strike the infringement testimony of Roland’s technical expert, affirm the denial of JMOL or a new trial on infringement and invalidity, and affirm the denial of inMusic’s equitable estoppel defense. However, we reverse the denial of a new trial on damages, vacate the damages award, and remand for a new trial on damages. Regarding Roland’s cross-appeal, we vacate the order denying prejudgment interest. And because we do not disturb the judgment of liability, we dismiss the remaining, conditional portion of Roland’s cross-appeal.
In re Uchechi Amuneke-Nze (Nonprecedential Order)
Uchechi Amuneke-Nze petitions this court to issue a writ of mandamus directed to the United States Department of Education and Secretary of Education to “cease unconstitutional and ultra vires actions,” “[p]revent enforcement of legislative rules,” and make other findings relating to rulemaking. Pet. at 3–4. The petition also asks for expedited consideration. Id. at 3.
The All Writs Act provides that the federal courts “may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C.§ 1651(a). As that statute makes clear, however, the Act is not itself a grant of jurisdiction. See Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529, 534–35 (1999). The submitted petition does not reference any specific agency or trial court action that could eventually be subject to this court’s jurisdiction on direct appeal such that we lack jurisdiction to consider the mandamus request. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1295. We therefore dismiss the petition.
In re Amsted Rail Company, Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
The parties move jointly to deconsolidate Appeal No. 2024-2345 from Appeal Nos. 2025-1062 and 2025-1067 and to have the cases proceed as companions. ECF No. 27. Hum Industrial Technology, Inc. separately moves unopposed to dismiss its cross-appeal, Appeal No. 2025-1062, and to withdraw from these appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, ECF No. 28 at 5.
Upon consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The parties’ motion to deconsolidate and companion, ECF No. 27, is denied.
(2) Hum’s motion to dismiss its cross-appeal and withdraw from the proceeding, ECF No. 28, is granted. Appeal No. 2025-1062 is dismissed. The revised official caption and short caption for the remaining consolidated appeals, Appeal Nos. 2024-2345 and 2025-1067, are reflected in this order
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs as to Appeal No. 2025-1062.
(4) Amsted Rail Company, Inc.’s opening brief in Appeal Nos. 2024-2345 and 2025-1067 is due within 30 days of the date of entry of this order.
(5) The United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is directed to inform this court within 30 days of the date of entry of this order whether the PTO will participate in Appeal Nos. 2024-2345 and 2025-1067.
(6) If the PTO elects to participate as intervenor, its docketing statement is due within 14 days after its notice of election to intervene, and its brief is due within 40 days of the date of service of Amsted’s opening brief. Amsted will have 21 days after the filing of the PTO’s brief to file its reply brief.
(7) If the PTO elects not to intervene, the appendix is due within seven days of either the date of filing of Amsted’s opening brief or the PTO’s notice of non-election, whichever is later.
(8) The Clerk of Court shall transmit a copy of this order to the merits panel assigned to Appeal Nos. 2024-2345 and 2025-1067.