This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions and two nonprecedential opinions. The first precedential opinion reverses and remands a dismissal by the Court of Federal Claims in a takings case, and the second affirms a judgment of the Court of International Trade. The first nonprecedential opinion affirms a dismissal by the Court of Federal Claims for lack of jurisdiction, and the second affirms a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Darby Development Company, Inc. v. United States (Precedential)
In September 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) responded to the COVID-19 pandemic by issuing a nationwide order temporarily halting residential evictions. This eviction moratorium (or iterations of it) remained generally effective for nearly a year.
Owners of residential rental properties sued the government in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, claiming that the CDC’s order constituted a physical taking of their property for public use, thus requiring just compensation under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed their complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Because we conclude that the complaint stated a claim for a physical taking, we reverse and remand for further proceedings
Primesource Building Products, Inc. v. United States (Precedential)
China Staple Enterprise Corporation, De Fasteners Inc., Hoyi Plus Co., Ltd., Liang Chyuan Industrial Co., Ltd.(“Liang Chyuan”), Trim International or the “non-selected respondents”) separately appeal from the final judgment of the United States Court of International Trade (the “Trade Court”) on the fourth administrative review of an antidumping duty order on certain steel nails from Taiwan. PrimeSource Bldg. Prod., Inc. v. United States, 581 F. Supp. 3d 1331 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2022) (“Decision”). The Trade Court sustained the United States Department of Commerce’s (“Commerce”) use of the expected method to calculate an all-others rate for the nonselected respondents equal to the adverse facts available (“AFA”) rate that was applied to all the mandatory respondents in Commerce’s review. Id.
PrimeSource is an importer of steel nails from Taiwan and appeals Commerce’s calculation and application of the all-others rate solely with respect to Liang Chyuan, one of the non-selected respondents. Cheng Ch appeals the rate with respect to the non-selected respondents, generally. Because Commerce’s calculation and application of the all-others rate is supported by substantial evidence and otherwise in accordance with law, we affirm.
Bass v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Ronald Bass, Sr. appeals from the United States Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of his complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. For the following reasons, we affirm.
IRobot Corporation v. Sharkninja Operating LLC (Nonprecedential)
iRobot Corporation (“iRobot”) appeals from the final written decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) holding that claims 1−4, 6−8, 10, 12−15, 18−23, 25, and 26 of U.S. Patent 9,884,423 (“the ’423 patent”) are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted prior art. SharkNinja Operating LLC v. iRobot Corp., No. IPR2021-00544 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2022), J.A. 1−62 (“Decision”). SharkNinja Operating LLC, SharkNinja Management LLC, and SharkNinja Sales Co. (collectively, “SharkNinja”) cross-appeal the decision that claim 9 of the ’423 patent had not been shown to have been obvious. For the following reasons, we affirm.