This morning the Federal Circuit issued three nonprecedential opinions in patent cases appealed from the Western District of Wisconsin, the Central District of California, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, respectively. The court also issued seven nonprecedential orders this morning and late yesterday. One grants a motion to transfer venue; two deny motions to transfer venue; two dismiss cases for lack of jurisdiction; and two grant voluntary dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.
Ascion, LLC v. Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Ascion, LLC, dba Reverie appeals from the Western District of Wisconsin’s summary judgment decision determining that U.S. Patent No. 9,451,833 is invalid for lack of adequate written description. Because we conclude that a genuine issue of material fact exists, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.
Schaefers v. Blizzard Energy Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Bernd Schaefers appeals a decision of the United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissing Mr. Schaefers’ complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We affirm.
Andrea Electronics Corp. v. Apple, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Patent owner Andrea Electronics Corp. (Andrea) appeals the inter partes review decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) finding claims 6–9 of U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345 (’345 patent) unpatentable as obvious over Hirsch in view of Martin. Apple Inc. v. Andrea Elecs. Corp., No. IPR2017-00626, 2020 WL 6324693 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2020) (Board Decision).
This case is before us for a second time after we remanded part of the case back to the Board. Apple Inc v. Andrea Elecs. Corp., 949 F.3d 697 (Fed. Cir. 2020), vacating No. IPR2017-00626, 2018 WL 3414463 (P.T.A.B. July 12, 2018) (Prior Board Decision). In the first appeal, we held the Board erred by not considering an argument made by petitioner Apple Inc. (Apple) on reply that we held did not present a new legal ground and properly responded to arguments raised by the patent owner’s response. Id. at 706. The reply argument was that Martin discloses a “current minimum” and “future minimum” in an embodiment involving multiple subwindows. Id. at 699, 703–04. On remand, the Board considered the argument and found the claim limitations met but failed to properly analyze the motivation to combine Hirsch with Martin. We, therefore, vacate and remand. We affirm the Board’s finding that Martin discloses the limitations of claim 9.
In re Apple Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
Apple Inc. petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. CPC Patent Technologies PTY Ltd. opposes. Because the district court clearly abused its discretion in evaluating the transfer motion, we grant the petition and direct transfer.
In re Canon Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
Canon Inc. and Canon U.S.A., Inc. (“CUSA”) (collectively, “Canon”) petition this court for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (“WDTX”) to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (“EDNY”) based on improper venue and inconvenient forum. For the reasons below, we deny the petition.
In re Canon Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
Canon Inc. and Canon U.S.A., Inc. (“CUSA”) (collectively, “Canon”) petition this court for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (“WDTX”) to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (“EDNY”). We deny the petition.
Payne v. United States Postal Service (Nonprecedential Order)
The United States Postal Service (USPS) moves to waive the timing requirement under Federal Circuit Rule 27(f) and to dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. Joseph C. Payne responds.
* * *
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motion is granted, and the petition is dismissed.
(2) All other pending motions are denied as moot.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
Butler v. United States (Nonprecedential Order)
Richard Louis Butler, Jr., appeals from the judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint for lack of jurisdiction. He also moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, appointment of counsel, and a temporary restraining order. We summarily affirm.
B# on Demand LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC (Nonprecedential Order)
The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that:
(1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. P. 42 (b).
(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.
IdeaHub Inc. v. Unified Patents, Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that:
(1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. P. 42 (b).
(2) Each side shall bear their own costs