Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a trade case. Notably, Judge Dyk dissented from the majority’s holding affirming the Court of International Trade. This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and three nonprecedential orders. Both precedential opinions come in patent cases. Of the nonprecedential opinions, one comes in a patent case, while the other comes in a veterans case. All three nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.
Vandewater International Inc. v. United States (Precedential)
Appellants, Smith-Cooper International, Inc. and Sigma Corporation, appeal the final judgment of the U.S. Court of International Trade, which affirmed the U.S. Department of Commerce’s determination that steel branch outlets imported by Vandewater International Inc. fall within the scope of an antidumping duty order for “butt-weld pipe fittings.” We affirm.
DYK, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
This case involves interpretation of an antidumping duty order issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce that covered “carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings, having an inside diameter of less than 14 inches.” Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from the People’s Republic of China, 57 Fed. Reg. 29,702, 29,703 (July 6, 1992) (“Order”).
Appellants, three separate importers, sought scope rulings, arguing that under the industry practice as specified in the American National Standards Institute (“ANSI”) standard B.16.9 (“Factory-Made Wrought Buttwelding Fittings”), the term “butt-weld pipe fittings” did not include their imported steel branch outlets. They urged that buttweld fittings necessarily have beveled ends, and the pipes, fittings, and valves to which they attach must also be beveled, so that the resulting gap may be filled with welding material for connection. In contrast, appellants claimed their pipe branch outlets lack beveled ends and are connected to holes cut into the sides of pipes instead of being affixed to a pipe’s end.
Commerce’s first scope ruling (the Vandewater ruling) is the only ruling before us. In this ruling, Commerce did not consider industry practice at all. See J.A. 137–41. The other two rulings illuminate Commerce’s reasons for not addressing industry practice. In those rulings, Commerce declined to consider the ANSI standard because the Order itself made no reference to industry practice:
[N]othing in the scope language or the (k)(1) sources limits the scope . . . to merchandise conforming to [ANSI] B.16.9 standards. In fact, the scope of the order makes no mention of industry standards. We recognize that the petition references [ANSI] B.16.9 standards in a footnote, however, this does not limit the scope language to include solely merchandise produced or manufactured to ANSI (or ASME) B.16.9 standards.
J.A. 3724–25 (Sigma Ruling) (footnote omitted); J.A. 4094 (SCI Ruling) (same).
The majority affirms on the ground that the term “buttweld pipe fittings” in the Order was ambiguous because industry practice, in the majority’s view, was not uniform. I respectfully dissent because Commerce clearly erred in refusing to consider industry practice, and we cannot affirm on a theory never addressed by Commerce that requires factual determinations.
AliveCor, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Precedential)
Patent owner AliveCor, Inc. (“AliveCor”) appeals from three final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in related inter partes reviews (“IPRs”) that found all claims of its three patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 9,572,499 (the “’499 patent”), 10,595,731 (the “’731 patent”), and 10,638,941 (the “’941 patent”) (collectively, the “Challenged Patents”) unpatentable over certain asserted prior art. AliveCor challenges the Board’s obviousness findings and argues that the inter partes review petitioner, Apple Inc. (“Apple”), violated its discovery obligations. Because the Board’s obviousness conclusion is supported by substantial evidence and AliveCor forfeited its discovery challenge, we affirm.
IQRIS Technologies LLC v. Point Blank Enterprises, Inc. (Precedential)
Plaintiff-Appellant IQRIS Technologies LLC (“IQRIS”) sued Defendants-Appellees Point Blank Enterprises, Inc. (“Point Blank”) and National Molding, LLC (“National Molding”) (collectively, “Defendants”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for infringement of two of IQRIS’s patents. Point Blank and National Molding moved for summary judgment of noninfringement, arguing that the accused products lacked a “pull cord” as required by the asserted patent claims. The district court granted the motion, concluding that the two accused products did not infringe literally or under the doctrine of equivalents as a matter of law. IQRIS appeals, arguing the summary judgment rests on an erroneous construction of the claim term “pull cord.” Because the district court’s construction improperly limited “pull cord” to a directly pulled cord that lacks a handle, we vacate the grant of summary judgment and remand for further consideration consistent with this opinion.
AliveCor, Inc. v. International Trade Commission (Nonprecedential)
AliveCor, Inc. (“AliveCor”) owns U.S. Patent Nos. 9,572,499 (the “’499 patent”), 10,595,731 (the “’731 patent”), and 10,638,941 (the “’941 patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”), which each relate to systems and methods for measuring and analyzing physiological data to detect cardiac arrhythmias. On May 26, 2021, the International Trade Commission (“Commission”) instituted an investigation in response to AliveCor’s allegations that Apple Inc. (“Apple”) violated 19 U.S.C. § 1337 by importing or selling Apple Watch products incorporating features that infringe the Asserted Patents. An administrative law judge (“ALJ”) issued an Initial Determination finding that Apple had violated Section 377 by infringing the ’941 and ’731 patents, but finding no violation as to the ’499 patent. The Commission, reviewing the ALJ’s decision, reached the same conclusion and issued a limited exclusion order restricting importation of Apple’s watch products. AliveCor appealed the Commission’s final decision, and Apple cross-appealed.
Latham v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Benjamin Latham, a veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps, and his wife and caretaker, Patricia Latham, appeal a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims that denied a writ of mandamus and motion to expedite proceedings. Because Mr. and Mrs. Latham’s appeal challenges the Veterans Court’s factual determinations or application of law to fact, which we lack jurisdiction to review, we dismiss.