This morning the Federal Circuit issued three precedential opinions in a patent case, an international trade case, and a case affirming the Court of Federal Claims. The court also issued three nonprecedential opinions: two in patent cases and one in another case affirming the Court of Federal Claims. Finally, the court issued five Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

Airbus S.A.S. v. Firepass Corp. (Precedential)

Airbus S.A.S. appeals the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s reversal of the patent examiner’s rejection of certain new claims presented by patent owner Firepass Corporation in an inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,418,752. Airbus challenges the Board’s finding that an asserted prior art reference fails to qualify as relevant prior art because it is not analogous to the claimed invention of the ’752 patent. We hold that the Board erred in its analogous art analysis by declining to consider record evidence relied on by Airbus to demonstrate the knowledge and perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. We therefore vacate the Board’s reversal of the examiner’s rejection and remand for reconsideration in view of this additional evidence.

Industrial Chemicals, Inc. v. United States (Precedential)

Appellant Industrial Chemicals, Inc. (“Industrial Chemicals”) appeals from the judgment of the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) dismissing its complaint. The CIT held that it lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) (2012) to consider Industrial Chemicals’ claim that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) had improperly denied its protest concerning duty free treatment for its entries of organic chemicals from India under the Generalized System of Preferences (“GSP”). See Indus. Chems., Inc. v. United States, 335 F. Supp. 3d 1327, 1330 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2018); J.A. 1 (Judgment). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5). We affirm.

Norman v. United States (Precedential)

Mindy P. Norman appeals a July 31, 2018 decision by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims finding that: (a) Ms. Norman willfully failed to file a Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (“FBAR”) in 2007; and (b) the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) properly assessed a penalty of $803,530 for this failure. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

In re Motupalli (Nonprecedential)

Appellant Caleb Suresh Motupalli appeals a decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) affirming an examiner’s rejections of claims 27–29, 31–35, 37–42, and 44–46 (“the Proposed Claims”) of U.S. Patent Application No. 13/516,443 (“the ’443 application”) under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶¶ 1, 2 (2006)1 and 35 U.S.C. § 101 (2012). J.A. 1–66 (Decision); see J.A. 1594–624 (Final Office Action). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) (2012). We affirm.

Polidi v. Lee (Nonprecedential)

Richard Polidi appeals the decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We conclude that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal but decline to transfer because Polidi’s claim is frivolous. We therefore dismiss Polidi’s appeal.

Bible v. United States (Nonprecedential)

Aleksandr Bible appeals a decision from the Court of Federal Claims dismissing Bible’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Bible’s complaint alleged that the United States improperly offset his federal income tax refund to pay a debt Bible purportedly owed to the State of California. Because the court correctly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claim in Bible’s complaint, we affirm.

Rule 36 Judgments