Today the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case, one precedential opinion in an international trade case, one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, two nonprecedential opinions in veterans cases, and one nonprecedential Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC (Precedential)

American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. (“AAM”) sued Neapco Holdings LLC and Neapco Drivelines LLC (collectively, “Neapco”) alleging infringement of claims of U.S. Pa- tent No. 7,774,911 (“the ’911 patent”). The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment as to the eligibility of the asserted claims of the ’911 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court granted Neapco’s motion and held that the asserted claims are ineligible under § 101. We agree and therefore affirm.

Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. v. United States (Precedential)

The United States Department of Commerce found that certain foreign producers and exporters were dumping certain products into the United States market, and it im- posed a small antidumping duty on their imports. A domestic company argues that Commerce should have imposed a higher duty. The foreign producers and exporters argue that Commerce made methodological errors, the correction of which would reduce any dumping margin to a de minimis level, so that no duty would be imposed. We reject the domestic firm’s challenge. We partly reject the foreign firms’ challenge, and we remand to secure further explanation from Commerce about one issue.

Aker Biomarine Antarctic AS v. Rimfrost AS (Nonprecedential)

Aker Biomarine Antarctic AS (“Aker”) appeals from two final written decisions of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) in two inter partes review proceedings holding claims 1–19 of U.S. Patent 9,028,877 (“the ’877 patent) and claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent 9,078,905 (“the ’905 patent”) unpatentable as obvious. See Rimfrost AS v. Aker Biomarine Antarctic AS, No. IPR2017-00746, 2018 WL 3857128 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 10, 2018) (“877 Decision”); Rimfrost AS v. Aker Biomarine Antarctic AS, No. IPR2017-00745, 2018 WL 3857126 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 10, 2018) (“905 Decision”). For the reasons detailed below, we affirm.

Melver v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)

Matthew Melver, a recipient of veterans’ disability benefits for his service-connected right hip disability due to chronic hip pain, applied to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for an increase in his disability rating. The VA’s Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied his claim, determining that the criteria for an increased rating were not met. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) affirmed. In his appeal to this court, Mr. Melver has identified no legal error committed by the Veterans Court. He has challenged only the facts or the application of law to the facts. With no constitutional claim asserted, we lack jurisdiction to review such a challenge. Therefore, we must dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Bowden v. United States (Nonprecedential)

Dichondra Bowden appeals from the decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims (the “Claims Court”) denying a motion for reconsideration of a judgment dismissing her complaint for lack of jurisdiction. See Bowden v. United States, No. 1:18-cv-01838, 2019 WL 1504378, at *3–4 (Fed. Cl. Apr. 5, 2019) (“Decision”). Because the Claims Court did not err in its dismissal and subsequent denial of reconsideration, we affirm.

Rule 36 Judgments