Qiang Wang v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc.

Ninth Circuit

Qiang Wang v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc.

671 F. App'x 666

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 21, 2016

Docket14-16092

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 671 F. App'x 666 (Qiang Wang v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Qiang Wang v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., 671 F. App'x 666 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

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 *667 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI