This morning the Federal Circuit released four precedential opinions and three nonprecedential opinions. The first precedential opinion comes in a trade case and affirms in part, vacates in part, and remands the case to the Court of International Trade. Notably, Judge Stark concurred in part and dissenting in part from the majority’s judgment. The second precedential opinion comes in a case challenging a final rule of the Department of Veterans Affairs that changed how the VA pays for noncontract ground and air ambulance transports for eligible beneficiaries. The Federal Circuit set aside the final rule. The third precedential opinion comes in a patent case. In this third case the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment of the District of Delaware over challenges to two of the lower court’s claim constructions. The fourth precedential opinion comes in a case dismissed by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for lack of jurisdiction. All three of the nonprecedential opinions come in pro se appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Risen Energy Co. v. United States (Precedential)
This appeal concerns the Sixth Administrative Review of an antidumping order concerning crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells (commonly referred to as “solar cells”) from the People’s Republic of China.
Appellant Risen Energy Co., Ltd. (“Risen”) is a Chinese exporter of solar cells, whose products are subject to the antidumping order imposed by the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”). Risen was selected as a mandatory respondent for such review. Since China is a nonmarket economy to calculate a dumping margin, Commerce used surrogate values from Malaysia for computing normal values (home market price) for the Sixth Administrative Review. The Court of International Trade (“Trade Court”) sustained Commerce’s surrogate value calculations for Risen’s physical inputs and its surrogate financial ratio calculations. See Risen Energy Co. v. United States, 569 F. Supp. 3d 1315, 1326 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2022) (Risen I); Risen Energy Co. v. United States, 611 F. Supp. 3d 1384, 1389–94 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2022) (Risen II). Risen appeals, challenging Commerce’s surrogate value calculations for its backsheet and ethyl vinyl acetate (“EVA”), and Commerce’s overhead ratio calculation. Because Commerce’s selections of surrogate values for Risen’s backsheet and EVA inputs were supported by substantial evidence, but Commerce’s surrogate overhead ratio calculation was not, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.
STARK, Circuit Judge, concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part.
I agree with the majority that Commerce’s surrogate values for Risen’s backsheet and EVA inputs are supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, I join in that portion of the majority opinion. See Maj. at 7-12. However, I believe that Commerce’s surrogate financial ratio calculations are also supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of International Trade (“Trade Court”), which reached this same conclusion, in its entirety.
Metropolitan Area EMS Authority v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Precedential)
Metropolitan Area EMS Authority, a.k.a. MedStar Mobile Healthcare, Valley Ambulance Authority, Quaker Valley Ambulance Authority, and Altoona Logan Township Mobile Medical Emergency Department Authority (collectively, “Petitioners”) challenge the validity of the final rule Change in Rates VA Pays for Special Modes of Transportation, 88 Fed. Reg. 10,032 (Feb. 16, 2023) (“Final Rule”), promulgated by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Final Rule amends 38 C.F.R. § 70.30(a)(4), changing how the VA pays for noncontract ground and air ambulance transports for eligible beneficiaries, purportedly pursuant to the VA’s discretionary authority under 38 U.S.C. § 111(b)(3)(C). Because the Final Rule exceeds the statutory authority vested in the VA by § 111(b)(3)(C), we grant the petition and set aside the Final Rule.
DDR Holdings, LLC v. Priceline.com LLC (Precedential)
DDR Holdings, LLC (DDR) appeals a final judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,818,399 (’399 patent) for Priceline.com LLC and Booking.com B.V. (collectively, Priceline.com or Appellees). DDR alleges that the district court erred in construing the claim term “merchants” to be limited to purveyors of goods alone, rather than purveyors of goods and services. DDR also alleges that the district court erred in construing the related claim term “commerce object” to include goods, but not services. For the reasons below, we affirm.
Goss v. McDonough (Precedential)
Attorney Robert Goss appeals a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand.
Coggins v. Office of Personnel Management (Nonprecedential)
Crystal Coggins petitions pro se for review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”). The Board affirmed the Office of Personnel Management’s denial of her claim for disability retirement benefits. We affirm.
Anderson v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
Tonya Anderson was employed as a Mail Processor at the United States Postal Service from July 1997 to February 2000, when she was removed from her position. When she appealed her removal to the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Board dismissed her appeal. Ms. Anderson now petitions for us to review the Board’s decision. We affirm.
Dokes v. Department of Agriculture (Nonprecedential)
Eugene Dokes, Jr., petitions pro se for review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) denying his petition for review and affirming an initial decision of an administrative judge of the Board that sustained Mr. Dokes’s termination. We affirm.