This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and five nonprecedential orders. One of the precedential opinions comes in a patent case. The other comes in an appeal from the Court of International Trade. As for the nonprecedential opinions, one comes in a patent case, and the other comes in a pro se case. One of the orders denies a petition for a writ of mandamus in a pro se case, while the other four are dismissals of appeals. Here are introductions to the opinions and the order denying the petition as well as links to the dismissals.
HMTX Industries LLC v. United States (Precedential)
From 2017 to 2018, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) conducted an investigation which found that China was engaged in unreasonable or discriminatory conduct that burdens or restricts U.S. commerce. Following a period for notice and comment, USTR took discretionary action under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 by imposing 25% duties on $50 billion of imports from China. This $50 billion trade action on List 1 and List 2—a reference to the list of Chinese products included in the affected Harmonized Tariff Schedules—is not challenged. After China retaliated against these tariffs, USTR invoked Section 307 to modify its discretionary action and impose 10% duties, later increased to 25%, on an additional $200 billion of Chinese imports that fall under List 3. USTR then imposed 10% duties, later decreased to 7.5%, on approximately $120 billion in Chinese imports that fall under List 4A.
Plaintiffs-Appellants HMTX Industries, Halstead New England Corp., Metroflor Corp., and Jasco Products Co. LLC are businesses that import Chinese products subject to the List 3 and List 4A tariffs. They filed the first of over 3,600 cases at the Court of International Trade alleging that the List 3 and 4A tariffs were issued without statutory authority and in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act’s requirements for notice and comment rulemaking. The main issue before this court is one of statutory interpretation, namely, whether Section 307 authorized USTR to modify its original Section 301 trade action by imposing escalatory tariffs on List 3 and List 4A.
The trial court agreed with the Government that the modifications were consistent with USTR’s authority under Section 307(a)(1)(B), which allows USTR to modify an action where the burden or restriction imposed by the investigated conduct “has increased or decreased.” 19 U.S.C. § 2417(a)(1)(B). Following a remand order instructing USTR to further explain how it considered significant public comments aired in response to the proposed modifications, USTR produced a remand redetermination articulating in greater detail its contemporaneous reasoning for the modified actions. On review, the trial court sustained the List 3 and List 4A tariff actions.
We decline to address the scope of USTR’s authority under Section 307(a)(1)(B) and instead conclude that Section 307(a)(1)(C) independently authorized the Lists 3 and 4A tariff actions. We further conclude that USTR’s remand redetermination complied with the trial court’s lawful remand order and supplied the necessary clarification to meet the APA’s requirements regarding notice-and-comment rulemaking. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s final judgment and sustain USTR’s challenged modifications.
Apex Bank v. CC Serve Corp. (Precedential)
Apex Bank appeals a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board refusing registration of Apex’s marks. Because the Board erred in its analysis of two of the factors of the likelihood-of-confusion analysis, we affirm-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand.
Spyropoulos v. Social Security Administration (Nonprecedential)
Philip Spyropoulos petitions pro se for review of a final order of the Merit Systems and Protection Board (“Board”), denying the petition for review but affirming in part and vacating in part an initial decision which sustained Mr. Spyropoulos’s removal from employment at the Social Security Administration (“SSA”). See Spyropoulos v. Soc. Sec. Admin., No. NY-0752-17-0121-I-1, (M.S.P.B. Apr. 17, 2024) (S. App’x 1–22) (“Final Order”); Spyropoulos v. Soc. Sec. Admin., No. NY-0752-17-0121-I-1, (M.S.P.B. Feb. 9, 2018) (S. App’x 23–72) (“Initial Decision”). We affirm.
Cascades Branding Innovation LLC v. ALDI, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Cascades Branding Innovation LLC (“Cascades”) appeals the dismissal with prejudice of its patent infringement suit against Aldi, Inc. under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. See Cascades Branding Innovation LLC v. Aldi, Inc., 728 F. Supp. 3d 917 (N.D. Ill. 2024) (“Dismissal Op.”). The district court held that all of the claims of Cascades’ asserted patents—U.S. Patent Nos. 7,768,395 (“’395 patent”); 8,106,766 (“’766 patent”); and 8,405,504 (“’504 patent”)—were invalid as patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Id. at 921.
Because we write for the parties in this non-precedential opinion, we assume familiarity with the facts. We affirm.
In re Williams (Nonprecedential Order)
Ben Williams petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking, inter alia, to direct the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana to vacate its order denying his motion for leave to appear pro hac vice in Luv n’ care Ltd. v. Laurain, No. 3:16-cv-777 (W.D. La.). Luv n’ care, Ltd. (“LNC”) and Nouri E. Hakim oppose the petition. Mr. Williams replies. We deny the petition.