This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, one nonprecedential opinion, one Rule 36 summary affirmance, and one nonprecedential order. One of the two precedential opinions affirms a summary judgment by a district court in a patent case. The other precedential opinion resolves an appeal from a judgment of the United States Court of International Trade. The nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Finally, the order denies a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to order the Western District of Texas to transfer a case to the Northern District of California. Here are the introductions to the opinions, selected text from the order, and a link to the summary affirmance.
AI Visualize, Inc. v. Nuance Communications, Inc. (Precedential Opinion)
AI Visualize, Inc. sued Nuance Communications, Inc. and Mach7 Technologies, Inc. in the District of Delaware for patent infringement. Nuance and Mach7 moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. They argued that the asserted patent claims were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter and therefore invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court granted the motion, finding the asserted claims were directed to an abstract idea and failed to provide an inventive step that transformed that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. The district court entered judgment and dismissed AI Visualize’s case. For the reasons below, we affirm.
United States Steel Corp. v. United States (Precedential Opinion)
United States Steel Corp. appeals a decision from the United States Court of International Trade sustaining the Department of Commerce’s determination that Australian producer and exporter of hot-rolled steel, BlueScope Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd., did not reimburse its affiliated U.S. importer, BlueScope Steel Americas, Inc., for antidumping duties. Because we agree with the trial court that the agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence and is otherwise in accordance with law, we affirm.
Quesada v. Office of Personnel Management (Nonprecedential Opinion)
Former USAID employee Luis B. Quesada filed an appeal to the United States Merit Systems Protection Board (“the Board”) from an Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) decision in 2009 confirming the accuracy of the amount of his civil service retirement annuity. The Board found that Quesada had failed to timely seek reconsideration of the OPM decision, and thus affirmed the OPM decision. Quesada v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., MSPB Docket No. DC-0831-19-0488-I-1, Initial Decision (M.S.P.B. May 28, 2019), S.A. 1–8 (“Decision”). For the reasons provided below, we affirm.
In re Google LLC (Nonprecedential Order)
Google LLC petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas to vacate its order denying transfer and transfer to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. We deny the petition.