This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in an international trade case, three nonprecedential opinions in patent cases, and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the links to the Rule 36 summary affirmances.
The American Cast Iron Pipe Company and other domestic producers of large diameter welded pipe appeal a judgment by the Court of International Trade involving certain price adjustments that were made in the course of an antidumping duty investigation. Appellee Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S. claims that it is entitled to a post-sale price adjustment based on the total value of penalties it paid for late delivery of product to a customer. The Court of International Trade agreed and remanded to the U.S. Department of Commerce with instructions to grant the claimed post-sale price adjustment and recalculate the resulting antidumping duty margins. On remand, the Department of Commerce granted the post-sale price adjustment, which produced a de minimis anti-dumping duty rate. This appeal followed. Because we conclude that the Department of Commerce’s original post- sale price adjustment was supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law, we reverse.
In re Kirilichin (Nonprecedential)
Victor Kirilichin, David P. Turechek, and Brian P. Krieger (collectively, “Appellants”) appeal the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) affirming the patent examiner’s rejection of claims 1–13 of U.S. Patent Application No. 16/027,992 (“the ’992 application”) as obvious over two prior art references. See Ex parte Kirilichin, No. 20-3395, 2020 WL 5231917 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2020) (“Board Decision”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). Because the Board did not adequately address Appellants’ teaching-away arguments, we vacate and remand.
Siegler v. Sorrento Therapeutics Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Sara Elizabeth Siegler—and, purportedly, Sara Elizabeth Siegler (“SES”), a sole proprietorship that she owns and operates—appeals several decisions of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. These include the denial of her motion for default judgment, the dismissals of her First and Second Amended Complaints, and the denials of her motions for reconsideration and motion for leave to amend. See Siegler v. Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. (Siegler I), No. 3:18-cv-01681-GPC- NLS, 2018 WL 9516052 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2018); Siegler v. Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. (Siegler II), No. 3:18-cv-01681- GPC-NLS, 2019 WL 581719 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2019); Siegler v. Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. (Siegler III), No. 3:18-cv- 01681-GPC-MSB, 2019 WL 1574321 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2019); Siegler v. Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. (Siegler IV), No. 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-NLS, 2019 WL 2549248 (S.D. Cal. June 20, 2019); Siegler v. Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. (Siegler V), No. 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-NLS, 2019 WL 3532294 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2019); Siegler v. Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. (Siegler VI), No. 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB, 2019 WL 6877594 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2019). Because we are unpersuaded by Siegler’s arguments, we affirm.
Shure Incorporated v. ClearOne, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
In August 2019, the Northern District of Illinois issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting Shure from taking various actions relating to its ceiling tile beamforming microphone array product, the MXA910…
* * *
Shure argues the district court expanded the preliminary injunction when it enjoined all sales of the MXA910-A, instead of just prohibiting the MXA910-A when used in a drop-ceiling mounting configuration. The preliminary injunction’s plain language and Shure’s representations during bond briefing demonstrate why this case lacks merit. The district court’s contempt order determined the MXA910-A was a colorable imitation of the MXA910 and faithfully applied the preliminary injunction—which barred sales if the product was capable of being installed in a drop-ceiling mounting configuration. To the extent Shure believes the preliminary injunction is too broad, it should have appealed that order. The order before us does not modify the injunction, and therefore, we have no jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss.