Posts Tagged: "mandamus relief"

Last week, cyber threat intelligence firm Centripetal Networks filed a petition  with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit seeking mandamus relief from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) “extraordinary departure from basic elements of due process” during inter partes review (IPR) proceedings challenging Centripetal’s patent claims. If left unremedied, Centripetal argues to the Federal Circuit that its own treatment at the hands of the PTAB “sen[ds] a message to the entire patent bar: Any attempt to hold APJs to standards comparable to those of Article III judges [will] be met with sanctions.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today denied General Motors’ petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel Judge Alan Albright to transfer a patent infringement case brought against GM by Intellectual Ventures (IV) to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. IV sued GM in Albright’s Western District of Texas court for infringing 12 patents covering services and products installed in GM cars, including certain features of GM’s OnStar service. GM moved to transfer the case to Michigan, arguing that “the employees most knowledgeable about the design and development of the accused products and certain third-party component suppliers” are based there. IV countered that GM has “an IT Innovation Center” in Austin, Texas, where employees knowledgeable about the accused technology work.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) yesterday denied a petition for writ of mandamus asking the Delaware district court to vacate an order to produce certain documents to ensure compliance with Chief Judge Connolly’s standing orders on initial disclosures in patent litigation cases. Nimitz Technologies LLC petitioned the CAFC asking it to vacate a November 10, 2022, order by the Delaware court demanding Nimitz produce documents including communications between Nimitz owner, Mark Hall, his counsel, and patent assertion entity IP Edge and the related entity, Mavexar. Following a failure to timely comply with the standing orders, Nimitz had initially told the court that Hall was the sole owner and LLC member of Nimitz and asserted in a statement that Nimitz “has not entered into any arrangement with a Third-Party Funder, as defined in the Court’s Standing Order Regarding Third-Party Litigation Funding Arrangements.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) last week denied a petition requesting mandamus relief to vacate the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) grant of a request for ex parte reexamination of Sound View Innovations’ U.S. Patent No. 6,708,213 by DISH Network LLC. The ‘213 patent covers a “Method for Streaming Multimedia Information Over Public Networks.” DISH originally petitioned the USPTO for inter partes review (IPR) of claim 16 of the ‘213 patent on the ground that it was anticipated and/or obvious based on two prior art references called Sen and Geagen.

Just as some sources had begun to speculate that Judge Alan Albright had received the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s (CAFC’s) message on transfer—in light of a slew of decisions reversing his refusals to move cases out of his court—the CAFC yesterday granted two more petitions for mandamus relief, holding the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas clearly abused its discretion in not granting a change of venue.

In December 2020, StratosAudio, Inc. (Stratos) filed patent infringement complaints in the Western District of Texas against Volkswagen and Hyundai (the Petitioners) which are incorporated in New Jersey and California, respectively. The two cases were consolidated on appeal. Since both Volkswagen and Hyundai reside outside of the Western District of Texas, the two companies moved to dismiss or transfer the cases under 28 U.S.C. §1406(a) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3).

While there are any number of reasons to question the continued viability, value and necessity of the Federal Circuit, the court’s continued use of mandamus is extremely troubling. Much of the time, it seems the Federal Circuit is using this extraordinary remedy to control the docket of Judge Alan Albright of the Western District of Texas, ordering him to transfer cases. Reading these decisions is becoming nauseating. The resentment of the Federal Circuit built up toward Judge Albright is palpable, yet at the same time the Federal Circuit ignores first principles and well-established law in an attempt to move patent cases from the forum selected by the patent owner plaintiff to a forum decidedly in favor of the defendants.

Raytheon, Nokia and Ericsson all filed briefs with the Federal Circuit encouraging the court to decline the Cray mandamus on a motion to transfer from EDTX… Cray is asking the Federal Circuit to decide two issues: did the Eastern Texas court err in holding that a “regular and established place of business” need not be a physical presence; and did the district court err in determining that the residence of a single work-from-home employee constitutes a “regular and established place of business” of his employer.

The Federal Circuit granted a mandamus petition filed by Google and ordered a Texas federal court to transfer a patent infringement case to a federal court that covers Silicon Valley as requested by Google. This extraordinary remedy was delivered in the form of a non-precedential opinion authored by Chief Judge Prost and joined by Judge Lourie. Despite the Federal Circuit’s designation of the decision as non-precedential the Court should be prepared for the onslaught of mandamus petitions that will now be filed given that they have shown a willingness to step in and re-weigh transfer factors de novo.

In 2013, Cardiocom, LLC (“Cardiocom”), a subsidiary of Medtronic, Inc. (“Medtronic”), sought inter partes review of two patents owned by Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc. (“Bosch”). The Cardiocom petitions were denied in January 2014. Medtronic later sought another inter partes review of the same two patents, without naming Cardicom as an interested party… Section 314(d) bars review of questions regarding the application and interpretation of statutes “closely related” to the decision whether to institute an IPR, including reconsideration of the Board’s decision to institute.