Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and six nonprecedential orders. Today’s lone precedential opinion comes in an appeal from a decision of the Court of International Trade. Today’s lone nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Of the nonprecedential orders, three dismiss appeals, two transfer cases, and one grants a motion for a summary affirmance. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders and a link to the dismissal.
All One God Faith, Inc. v. United States (Precedential)
Appellants appeal the decision of the United States Court of International Trade affirming determinations by Customs and Border Protection that Appellants transshipped xanthan gum from the People’s Republic of China through India to evade antidumping duties imposed by an antidumping order issued by the United States Department of Commerce.
Appellants challenge two aspects of the trial court’s decision. First, regarding evasion determinations over which the trial court exercised jurisdiction, they argue that the trial court improperly concluded that Customs’ evasion determinations were in accordance with law and supported by substantial evidence. Second, they contend that the trial court improperly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction certain claims seeking review of evasion determinations because those claims concerned entries that had been finally liquidated. We conclude that the trial court did have jurisdiction over these claims. Nonetheless, because Customs’ other evasion determinations were in accordance with law and not an abuse of discretion, and the trial court indicated it would find evasion regarding the finally liquidated entries for the same reasons if it had jurisdiction, we affirm.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Ltd. v. Netflix, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 9,402,098, titled “Fast Channel Change.” Netflix, Inc. successfully petitioned the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–5 and 7 of the ’098 patent, and the PTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board, upon conducting the review, concluded that all challenged claims were unpatentable, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for obviousness. J.A. 1–69. Avago appeals, challenging certain factual findings that underlie the Board’s conclusion of obviousness. We conclude that the challenged findings are supported by substantial evidence. We therefore affirm.
Aquino v. Department of Head City of Salinas (Nonprecedential Order)
Following this court’s show cause order, which neither party responded to, we now dismiss this appeal.
Aquino v. MP 21 Soledad ST LP (Nonprecedential Order)
Paul Anthony Aquino filed a complaint seeking $100,000,000 for violations of his civil rights. The district court denied Mr. Aquino’s in forma pauperis (IFP) motion and dismissed the case with prejudice. Dkt. No. 5. Mr. Aquino filed a notice of appeal directed to this court. In view of the subject matter of the underlying case, this court directed the parties to show cause why this court has jurisdiction over the appeal. Neither party has responded.
Burgos v. Department of Homeland Security (Nonprecedential Order)
The Department of Homeland Security moves to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Osvaldo R. Burgos submits his opening brief and two motions to “continue with the case.” ECF Nos. 16, 17.
Mr. Burgos seeks review of a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board affirming his removal. Mr. Burgos’s submissions before this court confirm that he asserted a discrimination claim before the Board and does not wish to abandon that claim. ECF No. 7 at 3; ECF No. 14 at 2.
Gordon v. United States (Nonprecedential Order)
The United States moves to summarily affirm the final judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing Daryl Jerome Gordon’s complaint. Mr. Gordon has not responded. We grant the motion.
Pena v. Collins (Nonprecedential Order)
Joe Pena has filed an appeal seeking review of an order of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims granting the Secretary of Veterans Affairs’s motion for an extension of time to file his brief. In response to this court’s November 18, 2024 show cause order, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs urges dismissal of this appeal as premature. Mr. Pena argues against dismissal.
Schofield v. Collins (Nonprecedential Order)
In response to the court’s show cause order, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs urges dismissal of this appeal as untimely. Preston L. Schofield responds, arguing, among other things, that equitable tolling should apply. He also moves for various relief, including “summary judgment,” ECF No. 10 at 1, “certif[ication of] controlling questions of law,” and “expedited review,” ECF No. 18 at 1.