This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a trade case, a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, and a nonprecedential opinion in a takings case. The court also issued a nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus to order the Western District of Texas to transfer a patent case, a nonprecedential order remanding cases to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and five nonprecedential orders dismissing cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the orders.
Uttam Galva Steels Ltd. v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Uttam Galva Steels Limited (“Uttam Galva”) was a mandatory respondent in the Department of Commerce’s (“Commerce”) administrative review of a countervailing duty order. Commerce applied adverse facts available (“AFA”) after it determined that Uttam Galva improperly failed to report an affiliated, cross-owned company. Uttam Galva appealed to the Court of International Trade and argued, in relevant part, that Commerce’s application of AFA and its inclusion of certain programs in calculating Uttam Galva’s net countervailable subsidy rate were not supported by substantial evidence. The Court of International Trade sustained Commerce’s decisions on both counts. Uttam Galva appeals. Because we likewise determine that Commerce’s decisions are supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.
Auris Health, Inc. v. Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Auris Health, Inc. (“Auris”) appeals a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) holding that independent claims 16, 51, and 53 and dependent claims 22– 23 and 25–26 of Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc.’s (“Intuitive”) U.S. Patent No. 6,522,906 (“the ’906 patent”) were not unpatentable as obvious. We affirm the Board’s holding with respect to claims 51 and 53 because the Board did not err in concluding that Auris failed to prove that a skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the prior art to disengage and reengage the master controls. The Board did not reach the reasonable expectation of success issue with respect to claim 16 and the corresponding dependent claims. It held instead that Auris’s asserted prior art references did not disclose the disassociating limitation. We conclude that the Board’s finding that the combination did not disclose the disassociating limitation was based on an improper claim construction, and we vacate and remand the Board’s decision for further proceedings with respect to claims 16, 22– 23, and 25–26.
Haggart v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Star Evans, a class member in this rails-to-trails takings case, appeals a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) awarding legal fees and costs under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (“URA”), 42 U.S.C. § 4654(c). The gravamen of her argument is that class counsel improperly reduced her recovery based on a contingent fee agreement. For the reasons below, we affirm the judgment with respect to the issues Ms. Evans raises.
In re ZTE Corp. (Nonprecedential Order)
ZTE Corporation (“ZTE”) petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas to vacate its January 3, 2022 order denying transfer and to transfer to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. WSOU Investments LLC opposes. For the following reasons, we deny ZTE’s petition.
Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Apple Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
Intervenor moves unopposed to remand these cases to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) to permit the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to issue new final written decisions consistent with the Director rehearing decisions vacating the Board’s prior decisions.
Upon consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motions are granted. The cases are remanded to the USPTO for further proceedings consistent with this order and the rehearing decisions.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs
Magee v. United States (Nonprecedential Order)
In response to the court’s February 23, 2022 order to file either the court’s docketing fee or a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Quincy Magee submits a nonresponsive “documentation of employment with the Postal Service” (ECF No. 7).
Upon consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
This appeal is dismissed for failure to pay the docketing fee. See Fed. Cir. R. 52(d).
Irobot Corp. v. Sharkninja Operating LLC (Nonprecedential Order)
The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that:
(1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. P. 42 (b).
(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.
Irobot Corp. v. Sharkninja Operating LLC (Nonprecedential Order)
The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that:
(1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. P. 42 (b).
(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.
Irobot Corp. v. Sharkninja Operating LCC (Nonprecedential Order)
The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that:
(1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. P. 42 (b).
(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.
Irobot Corp. v. Sharkninja Operating LLC (Nonprecedential Order)
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motion is granted. Appeal No. 22-1287 is dismissed. The revised official caption for Appeal No. 22- 1234, is reflected in this order.
(2) Each side shall bear their own costs in Appeal No. 22-1287.