This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential order granting a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Western District of Texas to vacate a scheduling order and postpone fact discovery and other substantive proceedings until after consideration of a motion for transfer. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders granting similar relief. Notably, each order granted a petition filed by Apple Inc. The Federal Circuit also today released three nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; the second comes in a military case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims; and the third comes in a patent case appealed from the Southern District of New York. Finally, the Federal Circuit released a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the orders, and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.
In re Apple Inc. (Precedential Order)
Apple Inc. petitions this court for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas to vacate its scheduling order, promptly rule on Apple’s pending transfer motion, and stay all proceedings on the merits until transfer is resolved. Apple also moves for this court to stay the district court proceedings pending resolution of Apple’s petition. Aire Technology Limited opposes the petition and motion.
* * *
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition and motion are granted to the extent that the district court’s amended scheduling order is vacated, and the district court is directed to postpone fact discovery and other substantive proceedings until after consideration of Apple’s motion for transfer.
In re Apple Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
Apple Inc. petitions this court for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas to vacate its scheduling order, promptly rule on Apple’s pending transfer motion, and stay all proceedings on the merits until transfer is resolved. Apple also moves for this court to stay the district court proceedings pending resolution of Apple’s petition. XR Communications, LLC opposes the petition and the motion.
In another Order issued today, we granted Apple’s petition to vacate a similar scheduling order on the ground that it was a clear abuse of discretion to force the parties to expend additional resources litigating substantive matters, until the completion of fact discovery, and re-briefing while Apple’s motion lingered unnecessarily on the docket, particularly when there were readily available, less time-consuming, and more cost-effective means for the court to resolve the motion. In re Apple Inc., 2022-162 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 8, 2022). We deem it the proper course here to vacate the district court’s scheduling order and for the district court to reconsider its decision in light of our reasoning in No. 2022-162.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition and motion are granted to the extent that the district court’s scheduling order is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Order.
In re Apple Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
Apple Inc. petitions this court for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas to vacate its scheduling order, promptly rule on Apple’s pending transfer motion, and stay all proceedings on the merits until transfer is resolved. Apple also moves for this court to stay the district court proceedings pending resolution of Apple’s petition. Scramoge Technology Ltd. opposes the petition and motion but “consents to the determination of the transfer motion now, with appropriate sanctions applied to remedy Apple’s obstructionist venue discovery misbehavior.” ECF No. 9 at 9.
In another Order issued today, we granted Apple’s petition to vacate a similar scheduling order on the ground that it was a clear abuse of discretion to force the parties to expend additional resources litigating substantive matters, until completion of fact discovery, and rebriefing while Apple’s motion lingered unnecessarily on the docket particularly when there were readily available, less time consuming, and more cost-effective means for the court to resolve the motion. In re Apple Inc., 2022-162 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 8, 2022). We deem it the proper course here to vacate the district court’s scheduling order and for the district court to reconsider its decision in light of our reasoning in No. 2022-162.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition and motion are granted to the extent that the district court’s scheduling order is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Order.
Campbell v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
Jessie I. Campbell appeals from a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirming the decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. Because we lack jurisdiction to consider Mr. Campbell’s claims, we dismiss.
Crumley v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Matthew T. Crumley appeals an order of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint as barred by claim preclusion. We affirm.
Ottah v. Bracewell LLP (Nonprecedential)
Chikezie Ottah appeals from a decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granting Bracewell LLP’s (“Bracewell’s”) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim of patent infringement and dismissing Ottah’s complaint with prejudice. Bracewell is a law firm representing an entity asserted to have been involved in infringing activity. See Ottah v. Bracewell LLP, No. 21 Civ. 455, 2021 WL 5910065 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2021) (“Decision”). We affirm.