This morning the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a trademark case, one nonprecedential opinion in a trade case, two nonprecedential orders denying writs of mandamus, and one nonprecedential erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions, the text of the orders, and the text of the erratum.

In re JC Hospitality LLC (Nonprecdential)

JC Hospitality appeals from an order of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) affirming the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s refusal to register two trademark applications. Both applications sought to register the same proposed mark “THE JOINT,” but for two different classes of services. The Board affirmed both refusals on the ground that the mark is generic for the applied-for services, or, in the alternative, because the mark is merely descrip- tive of the services and that JC Hospitality had not proven that the mark had acquired distinctiveness as a source identifier for the services. We affirm the Board’s order with respect to both applications because we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusions that THE JOINT is merely descriptive of JC Hospitality’s services and that JC Hospitality has not demonstrated acquired distinctiveness.

American Inst. for Int’l Steel v. United States (Nonprecedential)

On March 8, 2018, the President of the United States imposed a 25-percent tariff on certain imported steel products, exercising authority granted to the President by section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1862, a provision that traces its lineage to 1955. See Fed. Energy Admin. v. Algonquin SNG, Inc., 426 U.S.548, 552 (1976). The American Institute for International Steel, Inc.; Sim-Tex, LP; and Kurt Orban Partners, LLC (collectively, AIIS) sued the United States in the United States Court of International Trade, arguing that the statute is unconstitutional on its face because the authority it confers is so unconstrained as to constitute legislative power that is Congress’s alone under Article I of the Constitution and so cannot be delegated. The Court of Inter- national Trade rejected the challenge, concluding that the issue is controlled by the portion of the Supreme Court’s Algonquin decision that declares section 232 not to violate the nondelegation doctrine. American Inst. for Int’l Steel, Inc. v. United States, 376 F. Supp. 3d 1335, 1339–45 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2019). We agree, and we therefore affirm.

In re Huang (Nonprecedential Order)

Xiaohua Huang petitions this court for a writ of man- damus directing the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas “to reverse the district court’s or- der which dismissed case 2:16-cv-947.”

Mr. Huang’s petition references two cases, which he brought in the Eastern District of Texas, Huang v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., No. 2:15-cv-01413-JRG-RSP, and Huang v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., No. 2:16-cv- 00947-JRG-RSP. Mr. Huang previously unsuccessfully ap- pealed the final judgments in both of those cases. See Huang v. Huawei Techs. Co., Nos. 2017-1505 et al., slip op. at 13 (Fed. Cir. June 8, 2018); Huang v. Huawei Techs. Co., No. 2019-1726, slip op. at 6 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 9, 2019). Man- dates in both have since issued.

Mr. Huang’s petition is nothing more than an attempt to relitigate the final judgments that he previously unsuc- cessfully appealed. Because Mr. Huang clearly does not have a right to the relief he seeks, the court must deny his petition. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Dist. of Co- lumbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004).

(1) The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. (2) All pending motions are denied as moot.

In re Jadhav (Nonprecedential Order)

Ajit Jadhav seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Merit Systems Protection Board to vacate its August 16, 2019 order and to direct the Board to adjudicate his appeal. The Board and the Department of Health and Human Services (“the agency”) oppose the petition.

* * *

While we are sympathetic to Mr. Jadhav’s situation, we are not prepared to grant mandamus under these circumstances. However, the court will not rule out the possibility that the delay here could become egregious in the future, which could merit a reconsideration of the issue.

The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.

American Inst. for Int’l Steel v. United States (Nonprecedential Erratum)

Please make the following changes:
On page 16, line 12: change “Congress.” to “Congress).”.

On page 16, line 25: change “(1976)).” to “(1976))).”.