This morning, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions: one in a veterans case and one in an international trade case. The Federal Circuit also issued three nonprecedential opinions: one in a patent case, one in a case involving the Tucker Act, and one in a veterans case. Finally, the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking a transfer of a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.
Perry v. Wilkie (Precedential)
Vera Perry, the surviving spouse of Terry L. Perry, appeals the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”). The Veterans Court affirmed the decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“BVA”) denying Mrs. Perry’s claim for non-service-connected death pension benefits and burial benefits. The Veterans Court held that service in the state National Guard including a period of active duty for training, without disability incurred or aggravated in line of duty, does not achieve “veteran” status for these purposes.
The decision is in accordance with statute and regulation and manifests no constitutional infirmity, and is affirmed.
Tai-Ao Aluminum (Taishan) Co. v. United States (Precedential)
On May 26, 2011, the United States Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) issued antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) (“Orders”). On March 21, 2016, Commerce initiated an anti-circumvention inquiry as to heat-treated 5050-grade extruded aluminum products exported by China Zhongwang Holdings Ltd. and its affiliates. On November 14, 2016, Commerce announced in its Preliminary Determination that it was applying the anticircumvention inquiry to all heat-treated 5050-grade extruded aluminum products from the PRC, including those of Tai-Ao Aluminum (Taishan) Co., Ltd. and TAAL America Ltd. (collectively, “Tai-Ao”) and Regal Ideas, Inc. (“Regal”), and further determined that all such products were circumventing the Orders. Commerce accordingly instructed the United States Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) to suspend liquidation of all heat-treated 5050-grade extruded aluminum products from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after March 21, 2016, the date that the original inquiry was commenced.
The Court of International Trade (“Trade Court”) found that Commerce did not provide adequate notice to Tai-Ao and Regal that their products were subject to the inquiry initiated on March 21, 2016, and instead “liquidation should have been suspended from the date of the Preliminary Determination,” (November 14, 2016), and remanded to Commerce to reformulate its liquidation instructions accordingly. Tai-Ao Aluminium (Taishan) Co. v. United States (“Tai-Ao I”), 391 F. Supp. 3d 1301, 1315 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2019). On remand from the Trade Court, Commerce reformulated its liquidation instructions, instructing Customs to exclude from the scope of the Orders, and therefore exclude from duty assessment, entries for Tai-Ao made between March 21, 2016, and November 13, 2016.1 The Trade Court sustained Commerce’s reformulated liquidation instructions. Tai-Ao Aluminium (Taishan) Co. v. United States (“Tai-Ao II”), 415 F. Supp. 3d 1391, 1395 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2019). We conclude that the Trade Court did not err in its remand decision and affirm.
Bracco Diagnostics, Inc. v. Maia Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Maia Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Maia”) appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey that Maia’s sincalide product infringes U.S. Patent 6,803,046 (“the ’046 patent”), owned by Bracco Diagnostics, Inc. (“Bracco”). J.A. 1–8. The court entered the judgment pursuant to a stipulation of infringement by the parties in view of the court’s claim construction of the terms buffer, surfactant/solubilizer, and surfactant. Bracco Diagnostics, Inc. v. Maia Pharms., Inc., No. 3:17-cv13151, 2019 WL 4885888 (D.N.J. Oct. 3, 2019) (“Claim Construction Order”). Because Maia stipulated to infringement under a claim construction that is essentially correct, we affirm.
McLeod Group, LLC v. United States (Nonprecedential)
McLeod Group, LLC (“McLeod”) appeals from a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims (the “Claims Court”) dismissing Counts I, II, and V of McLeod’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See McLeod Grp., LLC v. United States, 142 Fed. Cl. 558 (2019). The court held that a blanket purchase agreement (“BPA”) between McLeod and the United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) was not a binding contract subject to appellate jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a). For the reasons below, we affirm.
Payne v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)
Marcus Sebastian Payne appeals from the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims denying his petition for a writ of mandamus. Mr. Payne’s mandamus petition challenged the Department of Veterans Affairs’ refusal to reinstate a claim and issue a Supplemental Statement of the Case. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.
In re Cinemark Holdings, Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
Cinemark Holdings, Inc., AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., and Regal Entertainment Group petition for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to transfer the underlying consolidated cases to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Intertrust Technologies Corporation opposes and moves for leave to file a sur-reply brief, which petitioners oppose. Petitioners and Intertrust move unopposed to exceed the confidential word limits of Federal Circuit Rule 25.1(d)(1).
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) Intertrust’s motion to file a sur-reply brief is granted. ECF No. 15-2 is accepted for filing.
(2) The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.
(3) The motions to exceed the confidential word limits (ECF Nos. 4 and 10) are denied as moot.