This morning, the Federal Circuit released two opinions, one precedential and one nonprecedential. The precedential opinion comes in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case on appeal from a district court. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Huttenwerke v. United States (Precedential)
Appellant AG der Dillinger Hüttenwerke appeals from a final decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade regarding an antidumping duty investigation. The Trade Court sustained the U.S. Department of Commerce’s rejection of Dillinger’s proposed adjustment to the model-match methodology and Commerce’s selection of likely selling price as facts otherwise available for a cost of production analysis. We affirm the Trade Court’s ruling as to Dillinger’s model-match proposal. But we hold that it was unreasonable for Commerce to use likely selling price as facts otherwise available for cost of production, and thus we vacate the Trade Court’s ruling as to Commerce’s selection of facts otherwise available. Accordingly, we vacate and remand.
Rasmussen Instruments, LLC v. Depuy Synthes Products, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
This appeal arises from a patent infringement action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Following trial, a jury found that DePuy infringed U.S. Patent No. 9,492,180 but did not infringe U.S. Patent No. 10,517,583. The district court granted in part and denied in part subsequent motions for judgment as a matter of law, for a new trial, and for various remedies and entered final judgment consistent with the verdict.1 DePuy Synthes Products, Inc. and DePuy Synthes Sales, Inc. appeal both the final judgment of infringement of the ’180 patent and the denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law on the issue of patent ownership, as well as the grant of Rasmussen Instruments, LLC’s motions for various remedies; Rasmussen Instruments, LLC cross-appeals, challenging the final judgment of non-infringement of the ’583 patent. Because we conclude that Rasmussen Instruments, LLC lacked standing because it did not own either patent at the time it filed suit, we vacate the district court’s final judgment and remand for the district court to dismiss this action for lack of jurisdiction.