James v. United States
District Court
Holding
The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the district-court cases did not arise under the patent laws, involve PTO review, or fit the court’s limited Tucker Act appellate jurisdiction. The court also declined transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 given a related appeal already pending in the Third Circuit.
Why It Matters
The order is a reminder that the Federal Circuit will promptly police its limited appellate jurisdiction over district-court appeals, including non-patent civil matters filed in that court by mistake.
Full Summary
Key Points
- The underlying cases sought $50 million in damages for alleged judicial conflicts connected to an employment-discrimination dispute, not patent claims.
- The court held that none of the usual bases for Federal Circuit district-court jurisdiction applied: patent-law arising-under jurisdiction, PTO-review jurisdiction, or qualifying small Tucker Act claims.
- The panel declined to transfer the appeal under § 1631 because the appellant already had a related appeal pending in the Third Circuit and identified no other proper transferee court.
- The court also stated it lacked jurisdiction to consider requests concerning recusal or disqualification of Third Circuit judges.
- The nonprecedential order dismissed the appeal and denied all pending motions.
- Fed. Cir. · Oct. 1, 2026Truinject Corp. v. Galderma S.A.
- Fed. Cir. · Sept. 30, 2026WSOU Investments LLC v. Salesforce, Inc.
- Fed. Cir. · Sept. 30, 2026ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated
- Fed. Cir. · Sept. 30, 2026EPIC TECH, LLC v. PEN-TECH ASSOCIATES, INC.
- Fed. Cir. · Sept. 21, 2026BERKELEY*IEOR v. W.W. Grainger Inc.