This morning, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions, one in a patent case and one in a trade case. The Federal Circuit also issued three nonprecedential opinions, one in a Vaccine Act case and two in trade cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (Precedential)
Egenera, Inc. (“Egenera”) sued Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging that Cisco’s enterprise server systems infringe various claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430 (“the ’430 patent”).
Prior to claim construction, and alongside an ongoing inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding, Egenera separately petitioned the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) to remove one of the eleven listed inventors from the ’430 patent. Following the district court’s claim construction and a trial on inventorship, Egenera asked the district court to add the removed inventor back to the patent. The district court determined that judicial estoppel prevented Egenera from relisting the inventor and held the ’430 patent invalid for failing to name all inventors. See Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 379 F. Supp. 3d 110 (D. Mass. 2019) (“Invalidity Decision”); Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 348 F. Supp. 3d 99 (D. Mass. 2019) (“Judicial Estoppel Decision”); Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 16-11613, 2018 WL 717342 (D. Mass. Feb. 5, 2018) (“Claim Construction Decision”).
Egenera appeals, challenging both the district court’s claim construction and the application of judicial estoppel. For the reasons described below, we affirm the district court’s claim construction but vacate the invalidity judgment based on judicial estoppel and remand for further proceedings.
OMG, Inc. v. United States (Precedential)
The Government appeals a decision of the United States Court of International Trade affirming a remand determination of the United States Department of Commerce. Commerce originally determined that imports of certain masonry anchors are within the scope of relevant antidumping and countervailing duty orders. On appeal, the Court of International Trade concluded that Commerce’s original scope ruling was contrary to law and the anchors were outside the scope of the orders, remanding to Commerce for reconsideration. On remand, Commerce determined under protest that the subject anchors are not within the scope of the relevant orders. The Court of International Trade affirmed Commerce’s remand determination. We affirm.
Nunez v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Nonprecedential)
Jordia Nunez and John Diaz (collectively, “Nunez”), the parents of a deceased minor child (“J.J.”), appeal from the decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) upholding the Special Master’s Decision on Entitlement, which denied vaccine injury compensation after J.J.’s death from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (“SIDS”). See Nunez v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 144 Fed. Cl. 540 (2019) (“Claims Court Decision”); Nunez v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 14-863V, 2019 WL 2462667 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 29, 2019) (“Special Master Decision”). We affirm.
NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
Infant J.J.D., at his 4-month well-baby check-up, was inoculated with vaccines derived from pathogens of viral and bacterial diseases hepatitis B, rotavirus, diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, haemophilus, influenza type B, polio, and pneumococcal conjugate. J.J.D. came home, his lips turned blue, and he was declared dead the next morning. The Medical Examiner could not determine the “cause of death,” and therefore listed the cause as Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, or SIDS. SIDS is not a “cause” of death; SIDS is an announcement that the cause is unknown. Yet the court holds that because the physiologic/medical cause was not explained, it must be held that there was no causative relation to the immunizations—or anything else—that preceded J.J.D.’s death. That is not a reasonable presumption, and it contravenes the text and purpose of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34, as amended (“Vaccine Act”). From the court’s contrary ruling, I respectfully dissent.
Midwest Fastener Corp. v. United States (Nonprecedential)
The Government appeals a decision of the United States Court of International Trade affirming a remand determination of the United States Department of Commerce concluding that certain zinc masonry anchors and certain nylon masonry anchors imported by Midwest Fastener Corp. are outside the scope of certain antidumping and countervailing duty orders imposed on certain steel nails from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. See generally Midwest Fastener Corp. v. United States, 389 F. Supp. 3d 1384 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2019); see also Certain Steel Nails from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Countervailing Duty Order, 80 Fed. Reg. 41,006 (Dep’t of Commerce July 14, 2015); Certain Steel Nails from the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, the Sultanate of Oman, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Antidumping Duty Orders, 80 Fed. Reg. 39,994 (Dep’t of Commerce July 13, 2015). The issues in this case are substantially identical to the issues presented in OMG, Inc. v. United States, No. 19-2131 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2020), issued herewith. For the reasons stated in that opinion, we affirm the decision of the Court of International Trade.
Simpson Strong-Tie Co. v. United States (Nonprecedential)
The Government appeals a decision of the United States Court of International Trade affirming a remand determination of the United States Department of Commerce concluding that certain zinc masonry anchors and certain nylon masonry anchors imported by Simpson Strong-Tie Company are outside the scope of an antidumping order imposed on certain steel nails from the People’s Republic of China. See generally Simpson Strong-Tie Co. v. United States, 393 F. Supp. 3d 1251 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2019); see also Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Steel Nails from the People’s Republic of China, 73 Fed. Reg. 44,961 (Dep’t of Commerce Aug. 1, 2008). The issues presented in this case are substantially identical to the issues presented in OMG, Inc. v. United States, No. 19-2131 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2020), issued herewith. For the reasons stated in that opinion, we affirm the decision of the Court of International Trade.