Case ID: f-appx_671/html/0666-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Qiang WANG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-16092
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 14, 2016 
    
    Filed December 21, 2016
    Qiang Wang, Pro Se
    Daralyn Jeannine Durie, Attorney, Ryan M. Kent, Esquire, Attorney, Ragesh K. Tangri, Durie Tangri LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Palo Alto Networks, Inc., Nir Zuk
    Jonathan Alan Patchen, Attorney, Taylor & Company Law Offices, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Fengmin Gong
    Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      
         The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Qiang Wang appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to vacate a settlement agreement he entered into with Palo Alto Networks, Inc. that resulted in the voluntary dismissal of his patent infringement claim.

We lack jurisdiction to hear Wang’s appeal on its merits. See 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) (the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over an appeal from a district court if the jurisdiction of the district court was based, “in whole or in part”, on 28 U.S.C. § 1338); Breed v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 253 F.3d 1173, 1178 (9th Cir. 2001).

We therefore transfer the entire case to the Federal Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631; Breed, 253 F.3d at 1180; see also Amity Rubberized Pen Co. v. Mkt. Quest Grp. Inc., 793 F.3d 991, 998 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[TJransfer will generally be in the interest of justice, unless it is apparent that the matter to be transferred is frivolous or was filed in bad faith”). The clerk shall transmit all materials lodged with this court to the clerk of that court.

TRANSFERRED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.