Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential and two nonprecedential opinions along with three nonprecedential orders. In the precedential opinion, the court affirmed a judgment of the Court of International Trade. In the nonprecedential opinions, the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and affirmed-in-part and dismissed-in-part a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The three nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.
Zhejiang Machinery Import & Export Corp. v. United States (Precedential)
Appellant Zhejiang Machinery Import & Export Corp. appeals the judgment of the U.S. Court of International Trade that affirms the U.S. Department of Commerce’s final determination in the 2016–2017 administrative review of tapered roller bearings from China. Zhejiang challenges Commerce’s decision that Zhejiang did not qualify for a separate antidumping duty rate because it failed to successfully rebut the presumption of de facto control by the government of China. Commerce’s determination that Zhejiang was not entitled to a separate rate was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence because a labor union is the majority shareholder with significant rights over Zhejiang and has overlapping membership with the employee stock-ownership committee. Accordingly, we affirm.
UPL NA Inc. v. Tide International (USA), Inc. (Nonprecedential)
UPL NA Inc. (“UPL”) appeals from a final written decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) holding that claims 1−4 of U.S. Patent 7,473,685 are unpatentable as obvious in view of the asserted prior art. . . . For the following reasons, we affirm.
Wright v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
Mr. Rodney Keith Wright appeals an order of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) denying in part and dismissing in part Mr. Wright’s petition for extraordinary relief. . . . We affirm the Veterans Court’s order denying the petition and dismiss the parts of Mr. Wright’s appeal over which we do not have jurisdiction.