This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and an erratum. The first nonprecedential opinion comes in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. The second comes in a patent case appealed from the Central District of California. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the erratum.
Pro-Team Coil Nail Enterprise Inc. v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Unicatch Industrial Co., Ltd., TC International Inc., Hor Liang Industrial Corp., and Romp Coil Nails Industries Inc. (collectively, “Appellants”) appeal the decision of the United States Court of International Trade affirming the United States Department of Commerce’s final determination in the first administrative review of its antidumping order on certain steel nails from Taiwan.
Unicatch Industrial Co., Ltd. is a Taiwanese producer of subject merchandise and TC International, Inc. is its affiliated U.S. reseller. These two entities (collectively, “Unicatch”) challenge: (1) Commerce’s use of total facts otherwise available (FA) with an adverse inference (i.e., total adverse facts available or total AFA) to determine Unicatch’s dumping margin after concluding that Unicatch failed to provide a complete cost reconciliation; and (2) Commerce’s selection of the investigation petition rate, 78.17%, as the AFA rate for Unicatch. Hor Liang Industrial Corp. and Romp Coil Nails Industries Inc. (collectively, “HL/Romp”) are Taiwanese producers and exporters of subject merchandise that were not selected for individual examination; they received the “all-others” rate of 35.30%, calculated via the expected method. HL/Romp challenge that rate. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Philips North America, LLC v. Garmin International, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Philips North America, LLC (“Philips”) brought suit against Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin Ltd. (collectively, “Garmin”) in the Central District of California for alleged infringement of several patents, including U.S. Patent Nos. 6,013,007 (“the ’007 patent”) and 8,277,377 (“the ’377 patent”). Philips appealed from the district court’s entry of partial final judgment of: (1) invalidity as to the asserted claims of the ’007 patent (following claim construction), and (2) no infringement as to the asserted claims of the ’377 patent. For the reasons that follow, we agree with the district court’s claim construction of “means for computing athletic performance feedback data from the series of time-stamped waypoints obtained by said GPS receiver” and thus we affirm the district court’s indefiniteness determination as to claims 1 and 21 of the ’007 patent. We also vacate the judgment of non-infringement of claim 1 of the ’377 patent and remand.