Today the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case, one precedential opinion in a trade case, and a precedential order denying a petition for rehearing en banc. The Federal Circuit also issued one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case and three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.
Eko Brands, LLC v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises, Inc. (Precedential)
This case involves claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,720,320 (“the ’320 patent”) owned by Adrian Rivera and Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises, Inc. (collectively, “ARM”) and U.S. Patent No. 8,707,855 (“the ’855 patent”) owned by Eko Brands, LLC (“Eko”). The parties appeal and cross-appeal various rulings made by the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington in infringement proceedings concerning the two patents. We affirm the judgment of invalidity as to the asserted claims of the ’320 patent and the award of attorney’s fees. We also affirm the judgment of infringement as to the asserted claims of the ’855 patent.
REYNA, Circuit Judge, concurring-in-part, dissenting-in-part.
The district court erred in its construction of “passageway” by rewriting the claims, including adding a negative limitation that is unsupported by the specification. The district court further erred when it granted summary judgement of noninfringement and an award of attorney’s fees based on its erroneous construction. I would vacate the district court’s grant of summary judgement, reverse the award of attorney’s fees, and remand for further proceedings.
United Steel and Fasteners v. United States (Precedential)
The United States Department of Commerce appeals the United States Court of International Trade’s determination that Commerce lacks authority to retroactively suspend liquidation of helical spring lock washers entered on or after the issuance date of an antidumping duty order. United Steel and Fasteners, Inc., an importer of the helical spring lock washers under investigation, cross-appeals the Court of International Trade’s affirmance of Commerce’s determination that its washers are within the scope of the antidumping duty order. Because we conclude that Commerce’s retroactivity determination was improper and substantial evidence supports Commerce’s scope ruling, we affirm.
BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. (Precedential Order)
Appellant BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. filed a petition for rehearing en banc. A response to the petition was invited by the court and filed by appellee Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. The petition for rehearing and response were first referred to the panel, and thereafter, to the circuit judges who are in regular active service. A poll was requested, taken, and failed.
Upon consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition for panel rehearing is denied.
The petition for rehearing en banc is denied.
The mandate of the court will be issued on January 21, 2020.
NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting from denial of the petition for rehearing en banc.
The court has declined to rehear this appeal en banc. I write because of the significance of the balance of agency and judicial authority, and the rules of procedural law in the administrative state.
Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (Nonprecedential)
Rovi Guides, Inc. (“Rovi”) appeals a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) holding that claims 1–33 of U.S. Patent No. 8,566,871 (“the ’871 patent”) are unpatentable as obvious. We affirm.