On its website, today, the Federal Circuit did not release any opinions, but it did release eleven nonprecedential orders in various cases. (Judges Prost, Hughes, and Stoll were busy!) Other than an order granting a petition to transfer a patent case from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California, the orders are relatively run-of-the mill. They do things like dismiss petitions, summarily affirm, deny petitions, and grant undisputed motions to transfer, and dismissal appeals. Here are the introductions to ten of the orders and a link to the eleventh order, a dismissal.
In re Samsung Electronics Co. (Nonprecedential Order)
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SEC”) and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“SEA”) (collectively, “Samsung”) petition for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (“WDTX”) to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (“NDCA”). DoDots Licensing Solutions LLC opposes. Because the district court’s refusal to transfer here amounted to a clear abuse of discretion leading to a patently erroneous result, we grant mandamus directing transfer.
Hambrick v. United States Postal Service (Nonprecedential Order)
Having considered the parties’ responses to the court’s October 3, 2023, order to show cause, we dismiss the petition for review as premature.
King v. McDonough (Nonprecedential Order)
In response to this court’s September 20, 2023, show cause order, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs urges dismissal of the appeal as untimely. Wendy King responds, urging the court not to dismiss because she “told the attorney [she] wanted to continue but he did not respond,” ECF No. 8 at 2.
In re Dodots Licensing Solutions LLC (Nonprecedential Order)
The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (“WDTX”) transferred DoDots Licensing Solutions LLC (“DoDots)’s patent infringement case against Apple Inc. to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (“NDCA”). DoDots petitions for a writ of mandamus to undo transfer. We deny the petition.
Akerman v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential Order)
The Merit Systems Protection Board moves to dismiss Martin Akerman’s petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Akerman responds with a request to “[q]uash” the motion and to “[p]roperly join[] and/or remand the case to the appropriate trial court(s).” ECF No. 25 at 3. He separately moves the court to clarify and “certify” this court’s October 13, 2023, order, ECF No. 27 at 1, and to “bifurcate and transfer discriminatory elements,” ECF No. 3 at 1.
In re May (Nonprecedential Order)
Samuel J. May petitions this court for a writ of mandamus directing the Attorney General to pay a percentage of a settlement agreement reached between the United States and Amgen, Inc. (Mr. May’s former employer) arising out of the misbranding of certain drugs.
Wicks v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (Nonprecedential Order)
Fonda Wicks moves unopposed to transfer her appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas denying her claims for death benefits under her late husband’s insurance plan.
Banks v. United States (Nonprecedential Order)
Louis A. Banks submits a motion to “hear case before the same merits panel of judges as prior related case,” and submits his informal brief, ECF No. 11-2. Having considered Mr. Banks’ submissions, the court summarily affirms.
Martin v. Office of Personnel Management (Nonprecedential Order)
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) moves to dismiss this petition for lack of jurisdiction. Janet M. Martin has not responded.
Brandenburg v. U.S. Department of State (Nonprecedential Order)
Leopold R. Brandenburg, Sr. brought this action challenging his separation from federal employment and the denial of a waiver from his obligation to pay back over $100,000 in unearned salary. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed his complaint. Mr. Brandenburg has appealed that judgment to this court. Having now considered the parties’ responses to this court’s show cause order, we transfer the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.