This morning, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in tax and trade cases. The court also issued one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Bank of America Corp. v. United States (Precedential)

Appellee Bank of America Corporation (“Bank of America”) filed a complaint against Appellant the United States (“Government”) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (“District Court”), seeking, inter alia, interest on Federal tax overpayments arising under 26 U.S.C. § 6611. The Government moved to sever Bank of America’s overpayment interest claims exceeding $10,000 and to transfer them to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims or, alternatively, to dismiss them for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The District Court denied the Government’s motion. See Bank of Am. Corp. v. United States (“Order”), No. 3:17-cv-546-RJC-DSC, 2019 WL 2745856, at *4 (W.D.N.C. July 1, 2019) (Order); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. United States (“Recommendation”), No. 3:17-cv- 546-RJC-DSC, 2019 WL 1349687 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 10, 2019). 

The Government appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(d)(4)(A). We vacate and remand. 

Apple Inc. v. United States (Precedential)

Appellant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) filed suit against Appellee United States (“the Government”) in the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”), challenging U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (“Customs”) classification of Apple’s iPad 2 Smart Cover (“Smart Cover”), model number MC939LL/A, under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) Subheading 6307.90.98.  Apple and the Government filed cross-motions for summary judgment, with Apple contending that its subject merchandise is properly classified under HTSUS Subheading 8473.30.51, duty free, and the Government contending that Apple’s subject merchandise is properly classified under HTSUS Subheading 3926.90.99, at a duty rate of 5.3 percent ad valorem. The CIT denied Apple’s Cross-Motion and granted the Government’s, concluding, inter alia, that the subject merchandise was properly classified under HTSUS Subheading 3926.90.99. Apple Inc. v. United States, 375 F. Supp. 3d 1288, 1305 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2019); see J.A. 1 (Judgment).

Apple appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5). We affirm. 

Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC (Nonprecedential)

Sound View Innovations, LLC (“Sound View”) appeals the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) decisions holding claims 1–3 and 8–10 of U.S. Patent No. 6,125,371 (“the ’371 patent”) unpatentable as obvious. We affirm as to IPR2018-00096 and dismiss as moot as to IPR2018-00017 and IPR2018-00366.