Court Opinion

ID: 2682480
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-07-10 15:01:46.078894+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:57.330339
License: Public Domain

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

  United States Court of Appeals
      for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

            U.S. WATER SERVICES, INC.,
      Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant,

                            AND

  GLOBAL PROCESS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND
                ROY JOHNSON,
       Counterclaim Defendants-Appellants,

                             v.

                 CHEMTREAT, INC.,
          Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellee.
                ______________________

                        2013-1236
                  ______________________

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota in No. 11-CV-895, Judge Patrick J.
Schiltz.
                 ______________________

  Before REYNA, WALLACH, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
                        ORDER
    In Wawrzynski v. H.J. Heinz Co., 728 F.3d 1374, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2013), this court held that it lacked jurisdiction
2                         U.S. WATER SERVICES   v. CHEMTREAT

under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) (2006), and transferred the
case to the relevant regional circuit. As in Wawrzynski,
the district court in this case exercised diversity jurisdic-
tion over the plaintiff’s state law claims, and the defend-
ant filed patent law counterclaims. Also like Wawrzynski,
the plaintiff’s Complaint was filed before recent amend-
ments to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) took effect on September
16, 2011. See Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L.
No. 112-29, § 19(b),(e), 125 Stat. 284, 332–33 (2011).
    Accordingly,
    IT IS ORDERED THAT:
    The parties are directed to show cause, within 15 days
of the date of filing this order, why this appeal should not
be transferred to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit, pursuant to Wawrzynski v. H.J. Heinz Co., 728
F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2013), Holmes Group., Inc. v.
Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 829
(2002), and related cases.
                                    FOR THE COURT

July 10, 2014                       /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole
      Date                          Daniel E. O’Toole
                                    Clerk of Court