Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders, one sua sponte vacating a preliminary injunction and the other dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to transfer a case out of the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas to the Sherman Division of the Eastern District of Texas; four nonprecedential opinions in pro se cases; two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals; and two summary affirmances. Here are the introductions to the opinions, the nonprecedential order vacating the preliminary injunction, and the precedential order denying the petition for a writ of mandamus, along with links to the summary affirmances and dismissals.
In re SAP America, Inc. (Precedential Order)
SAP America, Inc. and SAP SE (collectively, “SAP”) petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the district court to transfer the underlying case from the Marshall division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to the Sherman division of that same district and to require random reassignment of the case within the Sherman division. Valtrus Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd. (collectively, “Valtrus”) oppose. We deny the petition.
Boultbee v. United States (Nonprecedential)
John Arthur Boultbee appeals a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying his request to transfer his case to district court. Boultbee v. United States, No. 23-1884, 2024 WL 3220261 (Fed. Cl. June 27, 2024) (“Decision”). For the following reasons, we affirm.
Bradberry v. Department of the Air Force (Nonprecedential)
Camerron L. Bradberry petitions pro se for review of a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) denying his individual right of action (“IRA”) appeal alleging reprisal for whistleblowing. See Bradberry v. Dep’t of Air Force, No. DE-1221-23-0108-W-1 (M.S.P.B. Aug. 27, 2024). We affirm.
Jackson v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Charlie J. Jackson appeals pro se from a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) denying his petition for a writ of mandamus. We lack jurisdiction and accordingly dismiss.
Perry v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Mr. Perry appeals pro se a final order of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Veterans Court denied Mr. Perry’s petition for extraordinary relief. For the following reasons, we dismiss Mr. Perry’s present appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Incyte Corp. v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. (Nonprecedential Order)
The district court’s order granting Incyte Corporation and Incyte Holdings Corporation’s motion for a preliminary injunction is vacated effective immediately, opinion to follow.