This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions, one in a veterans case and the other in an international trade case. The court also issued a precedential order transferring an antitrust case to the Fifth Circuit based on a lack of appellate jurisdiction at the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the order and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.
Anania v. McDonough (Precedential)
Roy E. Anania appeals the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirming the decision by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals that his substantive appeal was not timely filed. The Veterans Court relied on a bright-line rule holding “a party’s own self-serving testimony” per se insufficient to establish the presumption of receipt under the common law mailbox rule. Because we conclude that a party’s affidavit may provide credible evidence to satisfy the mailbox rule, and because the Government does not challenge the credibility of the party’s affidavit in this case, we reverse.
China Manufacturers Alliance, LLC v. United States (Precedential)
The United States appeals from the final judgment of the United States Court of International Trade (“Trade Court”), which held that the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) could not apply an existing China-wide antidumping duty rate, applicable to all Chinese exporters that had not demonstrated independence from the Chinese government, to Double Coin Holdings Ltd. (“Double Coin”), even though it is undisputed that Double Coin failed to demonstrate independence from the Chinese government. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the final judgment of the Trade Court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Chandler v. Phoenix Services, LLC (Precedential Order)
Appellants assert antitrust claims based on the prior enforcement of U.S. Patent No. 8,171,993 in a separate case and, after we held the patent unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, the alleged continued enforcement through Appellee’s listing the patent on their website. We lack jurisdiction because this case does not arise under the patent laws of the United States. Accordingly, we transfer the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which has appellate jurisdiction over cases from the District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Raffel Systems, LLC v. Man Wah Holdings Ltd. (Nonprecedential)
Raffel Systems, LLC appeals the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board concluding that claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. D821,986 is unpatentable under the on-sale bar. The Board found that an email sent by patent owner Raffel offered for sale an embodiment of the claim in small quantities on-demand over a year before the priority date of the patent. We have considered the appellant’s arguments that the Board’s on-sale determination was unsupported by substantial evidence and find them unpersuasive. We therefore affirm.