This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. The Federal Circuit also issued two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, while the second comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Finally, the court issued five Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.
NEXTEEL Co. v. United States (Precedential)
This appeal arises out of the United States Department of Commerce’s administrative review of its antidumping order on oil country tubular goods from the Republic of Korea.
Calculating constructed value, Commerce found five circumstances that created a “particular market situation” affecting inputs to oil country tubular goods. The Court of International Trade determined that this finding was not supported by substantial evidence and “direct[ed] Commerce to reverse its finding of a particular market situation.” NEXTEEL Co. v. United States, 450 F. Supp. 3d 1333, 1343 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2020). We find that three of the five circumstances Commerce relied on to show a particular market situation are not supported by substantial evidence. Thus, with modified reasoning, we affirm the trial court’s conclusion that substantial evidence does not support Commerce’s finding. But because the Court of International Trade lacks authority to reverse Commerce, we vacate the trial court’s opinion to the extent that it directs Commerce to reach a certain outcome.
Comparing normal value to export price, Commerce relied on its “differential pricing analysis” methodology. In Stupp Corp. v. United States, 5 F.4th 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2021), we vacated aspects of Commerce’s differential pricing analysis over concerns about Commerce’s use of statistical methodologies when certain preconditions for their use are not met. Id. at 1360. Commerce’s analysis here raises identical concerns, so we vacate the trial court’s decision upholding the methodology and remand for reconsideration in view of Stupp.
Seeing no error in the other methodologies that Cross-Appellant challenges, we otherwise affirm.
Alford v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
Loretta Jean Alford petitions for review of a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB” or “Board”). The Board dismissed Ms. Alford’s appeal of her non-selection for a position with the Committee for Purchase from People who are Blind and Severely Handicapped (“AbilityOne Commission”) for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.
In re Luoma (Nonprecedential)
Eugene H. Luoma appeals from an inter partes reexamination decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that affirmed an examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–8, 10, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,873. GT Water Prods., Inc. v. Luoma, No. 2015-003755, 2015 WL 4552062 (P.T.A.B. July 27, 2015) (Board Decision). The Board found that Hymes anticipated claims 1, 2, 4, 6–8, and 11 and held that claims 5 and 10 would have been obvious over that same reference. For the following reasons, we affirm.