This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions and two nonprecedential opinions. One of the precedential opinions comes in an appeal in a patent case decided by the Southern District of Texas, and the other is an appeal in a trade case decided by the Court of International Trade. Both nonprecedential opinions come in pro se cases appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Magema Technology LLC v. Phillips 66 (Precedential)
On the eve of trial, Plaintiff Magēmā Technology LLC (“Magēmā”) learned that Defendants Phillips 66, Phillips 66 Co., and WRB Refining LP (together, “Phillips”) intended to introduce a new theory of noninfringement. Phillips’ new theory was that Magēmā could not prove infringement without access to certain of Phillips’ test results. But Magēmā did not have access to those test results because Phillips had successfully argued during discovery that it would be too dangerous to obtain those test results. Magēmā cried foul.
The District Court overruled Magēmā’s objection to the introduction of Phillips’ noninfringement theory and the jury returned a verdict of noninfringement on Claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 10,308,884. The District Court denied Magēmā’s motion for a new trial but found that the introduction of Phillips’ noninfringement theory was both “improper and prejudicial.” Nonetheless, it determined that Phillips’ persistent injection of its noninfringement theory throughout the trial was harmless.
We disagree. Because we cannot discern the basis for the jury’s noninfringement verdict and are not satisfied that the verdict was uninfected by Phillips’ improper and prejudicial noninfringement theory, we reverse the District Court’s order denying Magēmā a new trial and remand for a new trial. We also reject Phillips’ alternative grounds for affirmance and adopt the District Court’s claim construction.
Corinth Pipeworks Pipe Industry SA v. United States (Precedential)
Appellants challenge the judgment of the United States Court of International Trade that sustained the final determination of the United States Department of Commerce in the first annual administrative review of an antidumping duty order covering certain large diameter welded pipe from Greece. Appellants assert that Commerce erred when it rejected the information they submitted during the review and instead used “facts otherwise available” under 19 U.S.C. § 1677e and employed an “adverse inference” in reaching its final determination. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
Thornton v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Robert G. Thornton appeals an order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) denying his motion for full court review. Because we lack jurisdiction over the issues Mr. Thornton raises on appeal, we dismiss.
In re Aylor (Nonprecedential)
Appellants Robert B. Aylor, L. Heather Makover, and Robyn A. Haines appeal a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).