This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of International Trade’s judgment sustaining Commerce’s antidumping order. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order denying a writ of mandamus to transfer a patent infringement suit from the Western District of Texas to the Southern District of Florida. Here is the introduction to the opinion and text from the order.
Shanxi Pioneer Hardware Industrial Co., Ltd. (Pioneer) and Building Material Distributors, Inc. (BMD) appeal the decision of the United States Court of International Trade affirming the United States Department of Commerce’s final results in the tenth administrative review of the antidumping order on certain steel nails from the People’s Republic of China. Based on its finding that Pioneer did not cooperate to the best of its ability with Commerce’s request for information, Commerce applied adverse facts available against Pioneer and assigned an antidumping margin of 118.04 percent to Pioneer. We affirm the Court of International Trade’s judgment based on its conclusion that Commerce’s decision to apply adverse facts available was supported by substantial evidence.
In re Wenger S.A. (Nonprecedential Order)
Wenger S.A. petitions for a writ of mandamus to direct the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas to transfer this patent infringement suit to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Swissdigital USA Co., Ltd. opposes.
* * *
Wenger has not made a compelling case for transfer to the Southern District of Florida here, particularly in light of the fact that no party is located there and the finding of delay. Wenger did not challenge the finding of delay before the district court. And we cannot say that the district court was plainly incorrect under the circumstances in rejecting Wenger’s argument that the transferee venue would be more convenient for prospective witnesses and evidence. Swissdigital has represented that it will rely only on sources of proof in Wenger’s possession, Appx005, and has said it will rely only on expert testimony regarding “the characteristics and features relevant to [the accused products’] infringement,” Appx059, while Wenger’s motion to transfer failed to identify specific potential witnesses or evidence in the transferee venue on which it would rely. See Defense Distributed v. Bruck, 30 F.4th 414, 434 (5th Cir. 2022) (noting that conclusory assertions that sources of proof or non-party witnesses exist in a transferee venue lacks the “necessary proof” required to show “the existence of relevant sources of proof”). Under these specific circumstances, we cannot say that the district court’s denial of transfer produced a patently erroneous result.
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition is denied.