Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and five nonprecedential orders. Both opinions come in patent cases. One of the orders dismisses an appeal, while the other orders come in appeals from the Patent and Trademark Office and the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders other than dismissals, along with links to the dismissals.
Dynamite Marketing, Inc. v. The Wowline, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Sherman Specialty, Inc., d/b/a The WowLine, Inc., and Sherman Specialty, LLC (collectively “Sherman”) appeal the final decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (“District Court”), denying Sherman’s post-verdict motions for inventorship, invalidity, and non-infringement of Dynamite Marketing, Inc.’s (“Dynamite”) U.S. Patent No. D751,877 S (“D877 Patent”), denying remittitur or a new trial on the jury’s award of lost profit damages to Dynamite, and awarding Dynamite attorney’s fees. For the reasons stated below, we dismiss-in-part and affirm-in-part.
BJ Energy Solutions, LLC v. Evolution Well Services, LLC (Nonprecedential)
BJ Energy Solutions, LLC (BJES) appeals a final written decision (FWD) from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) holding all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,395,049 unpatentable as obvious. We affirm.
Newhouse v. Department of the Air Force (Nonprecedential Order)
Carl Newhouse petitions this court to review the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board dismissing his involuntary resignation appeal. As before the Board, Mr. Newhouse argues here, among other things, that his resignation was based on disability discrimination. See ECF No. 10 at 2, 3; Opening Br. at 2. The Department of the Air Force moves to dismiss or transfer this case for lack of jurisdiction. ECF No. 12. Mr. Newhouse opposes the motion to dismiss or transfer and moves for “res judicata” and for sanctions for “Violation of Federal Rule 11 Dilatory Tactics.” ECF No. 17 at 2; ECF No. 18 at 1, 3; ECF No. 14.
Roy v. Department of Agriculture (Nonprecedential Order)
Diane Roy appealed her removal to the Merit Systems Protection Board asserting, among other things, that a basis for her removal was age/race discrimination, whistleblowing retaliation, and reprisal for prior equal employment opportunity activity. In response to the court’s show cause order, Ms. Roy indicates that she does “not want [her] discrimination case dismissed,” and if this court does not possess jurisdiction, she is “sure [this court] will forward it to the right court.” ECF No. 11 at 1. The Department of Agriculture requests transfer to the United States District Court for the for the Eastern District of Louisiana. ECF No. 10 at 8.
Percept Technologies, Inc. v. Stewart (Nonprecedential Order)
The Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office moves unopposed to waive Federal Circuit Rule 27(f) and remand this appeal to the USPTO. In particular, the Acting Director states that the underlying decision “provides no reasoning as to how the prior art meets [a disputed] claim limitation under any of the petitioner’s asserted grounds” and asks for remand “for the agency to issue a revised decision,” “which may moot the need for an appeal or, in the alternative, will likely streamline the issues on appeal.” ECF No. 19 at 2, 4.
Melendez v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential Order)
Jaime Melendez appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board asserting his resignation was involuntary and alleging, among other things, disability discrimination. After the Board dismissed his appeal, he filed this petition seeking review of the Board’s decision as well as review of a related action before the EEOC. In response to the court’s show cause order, Mr. Melendez confirms that he wishes to continue to pursue his discrimination claims and requests transfer to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Board agrees that transfer to the Central District of California is appropriate without taking a position on the EEOC action.