This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, one in a copyright case and one in a trade case. The court also released three nonprecedential opinions, two in patent cases and one in a trade case. The court also released an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the erratum.
Bitmanagement Software GmbH v. United States (Precedential)
Bitmanagement Software GmBH (“Bitmanagement”) appeals the damages judgment it received in the United States Court of Federal Claims as compensation for copyright infringement committed by the United States Navy (“Navy”). The Court of Federal Claims determined that a hypothetical negotiation between the parties would have resulted in a license to Bitmanagement’s software at a cost of $154,400, which it ordered the Navy to pay Bitmanagement. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.
Oman Fasteners, LLC v. United States (Precedential)
Based on its 2015 antidumping-duty order covering certain steel nails from the Sultanate of Oman, the U.S. Department of Commerce conducted an administrative review under section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. § 1675, of merchandise that was covered by the 2015 order and entered into the United States between July 1, 2020, and June 30, 2021 (the 2020–2021 administrative review). Oman Fasteners, LLC, a foreign producer and exporter of steel nails covered by the 2015 order, was the sole mandatory respondent in the 2020–2021 administrative review. Commerce issued a detailed questionnaire to Oman Fasteners, and on the day a response was due, counsel for Oman Fasteners submitted the response through Commerce’s electronic filing system, but the system did not report acceptance of the submission (deemed necessary for completion) until 16 minutes after a deadline of 5:00 PM. The next day, as authorized by Commerce rules, counsel for Oman Fasteners made the final redactions for confidential information.
Oman Fasteners did not call its tardiness to the attention of Commerce officials. Five weeks later, after certain Commerce personnel noticed the 16-minute delay, Commerce rejected Oman Fasteners’ response. Commerce proceeded to issue the final results of the review without considering any of the information in the response and instead applied an inference adverse to Oman Fasteners, under 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b), to arrive at an antidumping-duty rate for Oman Fasteners of 154.33%. The ruling had the immediate effect of requiring the importer of all new entries of Oman Fasteners’ covered nails to make cash deposits with the government of that amount. Previously, under the 2019–2020 administrative review, the duty rate was 1.65% and therefore so was the cash-deposit rate.
Oman Fasteners filed an action in the Court of International Trade (Trade Court) to challenge the final results, and it promptly sought a preliminary injunction against imposition of the 154.33% duty rate. Domestic steel-nail producer Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. (Mid Continent)—which had filed the petition that led to the 2015 antidumping-duty order and which had participated in the 2020–2021 administrative review—intervened as a defendant. After consolidating the preliminary-injunction proceeding with a trial on the merits, the Trade Court held that Commerce abused its discretion and remanded to Commerce for recalculation consistent with its opinion—a nonfinal decision not subject to appeal to this court. But it also issued an injunction that barred Commerce from enforcing the final results and from collecting cash deposits of 154.33% and limited the cash deposits to the pre-existing 1.65% rate. Oman Fasteners, LLC v. United States, No. 22- 00348, Slip Op. 23-17, 2023 WL 2233642 (Ct. Int’l Trade Feb. 15, 2023) (Trade Court Decision).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1292(c) and 1295(a)(5), Mid Continent filed an interlocutory appeal from the injunctive relief granted to Oman Fasteners. Oman Fasteners, in response, has defended the injunction, while also challenging Mid Continent’s standing and urging dismissal for mootness in light of the intervening Commerce determination of a 0.00% rate for Oman Fasteners in the succeeding (2021– 2022) administrative review (which set the going-forward cash-deposit rate). We now conclude that Mid Continent has standing and that this appeal is not moot, but we reject Mid Continent’s challenges and therefore affirm the injunction on appeal.
Sandstrom v. Microsoft Corp. (Nonprecedential)
Appellant Mark Sandstrom is the named inventor, and now the assignee, of U.S. Patent No. 9,632,833 and its parent, No. 9,424,090, which describe and claim related methods and systems for assigning processor cores among applications to improve processing efficiency. Microsoft Corporation petitioned the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to institute inter partes reviews of multiple claims of the two patents, under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–19, alleging unpatentability for obviousness. The PTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board, acting for the PTO Director, instituted the requested reviews, and the Board, after conducting the reviews, concluded that all the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. Microsoft Corp. v. ThroughPuter, Inc., No. IPR2022-00527, 2023 WL 6115987 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 18, 2023) (’833 Decision); Microsoft Corp. v. ThroughPuter, Inc., No. IPR2022- 00528, 2023 WL 6122631 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 18, 2023) (’090 Decision). ThroughPuter, Inc., the assignee at the time, appealed, and Mr. Sandstrom, upon thereafter becoming the assignee, was substituted as appellant. We now affirm.
Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. v. United States (Nonprecedential)
On remand following this court’s decision in Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. v. United States, 941 F.3d 530 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Mid Continent 2019), the United States Department of Commerce relied on the financial statement of Sundram Fasteners Limited (Sundram) in determining that Oman Fasteners, LLC was selling its steel nails in the United States for less than fair value. The Court of International Trade (Trade Court) sustained Commerce’s determination, rejecting Oman Fasteners’ challenges to Commerce’s reliance on Sundram’s financial statement. On appeal, Oman Fasteners argues, at bottom, that, under the applicable standard of review, we should set aside Commerce’s determination because Commerce did not adequately justify its refusal to rely on two alternative financial statements—one from Al Jazeera Steel Products Co. SAOG (Al Jazeera), an Omani manufacturer of steel bars and pipes; the other from L.S. Industry Co., Ltd. (LSI), a Thai manufacturer of steel nails, for which the only financial statement Oman Fasteners timely submitted was not fully translated. We reject Oman Fasteners’ arguments and therefore affirm.
Simpson Strong-Tie Co. v. Columbia Insurance Co. (Nonprecedential)
Columbia Insurance Co. owns U.S. Patent No. 11,021,867. After Columbia brought an infringement action against Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., Simpson petitioned the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to institute a post-grant review, under 35 U.S.C. § 321, of all the claims of the ’867 patent for unpatentability. See generally 35 U.S.C. §§ 321–329. The PTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board, acting for the PTO’s Director, instituted the postgrant review and eventually determined in its final written decision that most, but not all, claims of the ’867 patent were unpatentable, as Simpson asserted. At issue before this court are several claims that survived the review. In particular, the Board rejected indefiniteness and enablement challenges to claims 13, 14, and 18–20 of the patent as issued and to substitute claim 32 added during the review. Simpson Strong-Tie Co. v. Columbia Insurance Co., PGR2021-00109, 2023 WL 2598961, at *4 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2023) (Decision).
Simpson appeals. We clarify that, for one claim (and its dependents) modified by a certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. § 255 after the post-grant review was sought, the Board’s final written decision adjudicates the patentability only of the uncorrected version, not the corrected version. With that clarification of the decision’s scope, we affirm.