David Halpern v. Peritec Biosciences, Ltd. , 333 F. App'x 86 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                 NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
    File Name: 09a0673n.06
    No. 08-4278
    FILED
    Oct 06, 2009
    LEONARD GREEN, Clerk
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
    DAVID HALPERN,                                    )
    )
    Plaintiff-Appellant,                       )
    )    ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
    v.                                                )    STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
    )    NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
    PERITEC BIOSCIENCES, LTD.; PERITEC                )
    BIOSCIENCES; RAJESH K. KHOSLA;                    )
    TIMUR SARAC,                                      )
    )
    Defendants-Appellees.                      )
    Before: MARTIN, ROGERS, and COOK, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM. Plaintiff Halpern appeals from the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal
    of his suit to enjoin patent-pending rights, testing, and marketing of a device he claims to have
    invented. Because Halpern’s complaint seeks relief under the patent law, appellate jurisdiction lies
    exclusively in the Federal Circuit. 28 U.S.C.§ 1295(a); 28 U.S.C.§ 1338(a). Neither party’s brief
    questions this Court’s appellate subject matter jurisdiction; thus, we raise it sua sponte.       See
    Answers in Genesis of Ky., Inc. v. Creation Ministries Int’l, Ltd., 
    556 F.3d 459
    , 465 (6th Cir. 2009)
    (“federal courts have a duty to consider their subject matter jurisdiction in regard to every case and
    may raise the issue sua sponte”).
    No. 08-4278
    Halpern v. Peritec Biosciences, LTD., et al.
    Jurisdiction lies in the Federal Circuit because Halpern’s “patent rights” claim seeks to enjoin
    the exercise of provisional patent rights conferred by 35 U.S.C. § 154(d) and asks the district court
    to determine under the patent law his right to enjoin the exercise of provisional patent rights, patent-
    pending marketing, and patent-pending testing. Consequently, the Federal Circuit has exclusive
    jurisdiction over this appeal. This Court may, in the interests of justice, transfer the appeal for want
    of jurisdiction to a court where the appeal could have been brought if it were timely filed. 28 U.S.C.
    § 1631. The interests of justice favor transferring Halpern’s appeal because it was not brought in
    bad faith and would also be time-barred if dismissed.
    Accordingly, the appeal is transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
    Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1631. The clerk of this court is directed to transmit the record and briefs
    to the clerk of that court.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-4278

Citation Numbers: 333 F. App'x 86

Judges: Martin, Rogers, Cook

Filed Date: 10/6/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024