Today the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case, one nonprecedential opinion in a trademark case, one nonprecedential opinion in an appeal from the Court of International Trade, and one Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

HZNP Medicines LLC v. Actabis Laboratories UT, Inc. (Precedential)

HZNP Medicines LLC and Horizon Pharma USA, Inc. (“Horizon”) appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey’s judgment of invalidity and noninfringement. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. (“Actavis”) cross-appeals the district court’s judgment of nonobviousness. We affirm.

NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, concurring-in-part, dissenting-in- part.

The district court held the method-of-use claims valid but not infringed. On the issue of infringement of these claims, Actavis conceded that the instructions in its ANDA label are identical to the method-of-use claimed in the Horizon patents. However, the district court held that, except for one claim, Actavis cannot be liable for induced infringement because the user might not follow the instructions on the label. The panel majority agrees. Again I respectfully dissent, for this holding is contrary to statute and precedent.

On Actavis’ cross-appeal, the district court sustained the validity of claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 9,066,913 (“the ’913 patent”), and found infringement. The panel majority sustains that judgment. I join that aspect of the court’s decision.

Cervejaria Peropolis SA v. Ambev SA (Nonprecedential)

Appellant Cervejaria Petropolis SA (“CP”) appeals the opinion of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (“USPTO”) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) granting Appellee Ambev S.A.’s (“Ambev”) petition to cancel CP’s Registration No. 3788757 for the mark FUSION, for “non-alcoholic beverage ingredients, namely, effervescent powder to be dissolved in liquid to produce an energy drink and hypertonic drink” (“the Registered Product”), due to abandonment, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1064(3) (2012). Ambev S.A. v. Cervejaria Petropolis SA, No. 9205943, 2018 WL 4146176, at *1, *17 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2018); 15 U.S.C. § 1064(3) (providing for the cancella- tion of a mark “[a]t any time if the registered mark . . . has been abandoned”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(B) (2012). We affirm.

Vinh Hoan Corp. v. United States (Nonprecedential)

Vinh Hoan Corporation (“Vinh Hoan”) appeals the U.S. Department of Commerce’s (“Commerce”) determination in the eighth antidumping duty administrative review of frozen fish fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (“Vietnam”). Vinh Hoan challenges the methodology used by Commerce in calculating the value of Vinh Hoan’s fish oil by-product. This by-product was an offset used in calculating a constructed normal value for Vinh Hoan’s frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. Because we agree with the Court of International Trade (“CIT”) that the methodology was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary and capricious or contrary to the law, we affirm.

Rule 36 Judgments