This morning the Federal Circuit issued three precedential opinions in an international trade case, a veterans case, and a Merit Systems Protection Board case. The court also issued one nonprecedential opinion in a Merit Systems Protection Board case, two nonprecedential orders in patent cases, and four Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the orders, and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.
CP Kelco US, Inc. v. United States (Precedential)
CP Kelco U.S., Inc. appeals the decision of the United States Court of International Trade (Trade Court) upholding the Department of Commerce’s treatment of Xanthomonas Campestris (X. Campestris) as an asset rather than a direct material input, and Commerce’s decision to use the Thai Fermentation Industry Ltd. (Thai Fermentation) financial statements to calculate surrogate financial ratios. For the reasons described below, we affirm the Trade Court’s decision to uphold Commerce’s treatment of X. Campestris as an asset. We reverse its decision regarding Commerce’s use of the Thai Fermentation financial statements to calculate surrogate financial ratios and reinstate Commerce’s determination to use the Ajinomoto (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (Thai Ajinomoto) financial statements.
Acetris Health, LLC v. United States (Precedential)
This case concerns restrictions on the procurement of foreign-origin pharmaceutical products by the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”). The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (“TAA”) bars the VA from purchasing “products of” certain foreign countries, such as India. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) directs agencies to purchase “U.S.-made end products” before end products from certain foreign countries.
The VA interpreted the statute and regulation to define the country of origin of a pharmaceutical product to be the country in which the product’s active ingredient is manufactured, here India. Acetris Health, LLC (“Acetris”) challenged the VA’s interpretation of the TAA and the FAR in a bid protest action at the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”). The Claims Court granted Ace- tris declaratory and injunctive relief, holding that the VA misinterpreted the TAA and the FAR and enjoined the VA, in future procurements, from utilizing an erroneous inter- pretation. Acetris Health, LLC v. United States, 138 Fed. Cl. 579, 606–07 (2018). The government appeals.
We hold that this suit is justiciable and agree with the Claims Court on the result, but find the Claims Court’s remedy to be imprecise in certain respects. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand for the entry of a declaratory judgment and injunction consistent with this opinion.
Sánchez v. Department of Veterans Affairs (Precedential)
Dr. José M. Sánchez filed a petition with the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) to enforce a 2001 settlement agreement (“Agreement”) that he entered into with the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”). The administrative judge (“AJ”) denied the petition, and Dr. Sánchez sought review in this court. We affirm.
PLAGER, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
The Government breached its contract with Dr. José M. Sánchez (“Dr. Sánchez”). It should be held accountable. Because the majority concludes otherwise, in a decision that is not supported by settled law or common sense, I respectfully dissent.
Rutila v. Department of Transportation (Nonprecedential)
Harold E. Rutila IV appeals a decision from the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) denying his request for corrective action under the Whistleblower Protection Act. We affirm.
In re Noble Systems Corp. (Nonprecedential Order)
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
In this case, the Board affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–7 and 9–21 of U.S. Patent Application No. 13/950,907. We affirm the Board on the ground that the claims are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
BMW of North America, LLC v. Theodore & Associates, LLC (Nonprecedential Order)
This case is hereby dismissed as moot in light of our affirmance in Theodore & Associates, LLC v. BMW of North America, LLC, No. 19-1446 (Fed. Cir. February 10, 2020).