This morning, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, a nonprecedential order, and two Rule 36 judgments. One of the precedential opinions comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of International Trade; the other comes in an appeal of a decision of the International Trade Commission. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board; the other comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims. The order transfers a case to the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the order and links to the Rule 36 judgments.
Midwest-CBK, LLC v. United States (Precedential)
Plaintiff Midwest-CBK, LLC (Midwest) appeals from the final judgment of the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) denying Midwest’s motion for partial summary judgment and granting the cross-motion for partial summary judgment of Defendant United States. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5). We hold that the CIT ruled correctly in granting the government’s cross-motion for summary judgment that (1) the subject entries were not deemed liquidated by operation of law; and (2) Midwest’s transactions qualified as sales “for exportation to the United States” under 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(b)(1). Accordingly, we affirm.
Crocs, Inc. v. International Trade Commission (Precedential)
Crocs, Inc. appeals the United States International Trade Commission’s finding of no violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337, by the respondents who participated in an evidentiary hearing: Orly Shoe Corp.; Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.; and Quanzhou ZhengDe Network Corp., d/b/a Amoji (collectively, the “Active Respondents”). Because Crocs’s appeal of the Commission’s no violation finding as to the Active Respondents is untimely, we dismiss in part.
Crocs also appeals the Commission’s entry of a limited exclusion order against the respondents the Commission found to be in default: Jinjiang Anao Footwear Co., Ltd.; Huizhou Xinshunzu Shoes Co., Ltd.; Star Bay Group, Inc.; and La Modish Boutique (collectively, the “Defaulting Respondents”). Because the Commission did not abuse its discretion in entering a limited exclusion order under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(g)(1) against the Defaulting Respondents, we affirm in part.
Chisena v. Major League Baseball Players Association (Nonprecedential)
Michael P. Chisena appeals from the final decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) refusing registration of two standard character marks––ALL RISE and HERE COMES THE JUDGE––and one design mark, pictured below (collectively, “the proposed marks”). See S.A. at 1–61 (“Decision”); see also Major League Baseball Players Ass’n v. Chisena, 2023 WL 2986321 (T.T.A.B. 2023).
Tindall v. United States (Nonprecedential)
James Tindall appeals from the decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“the Claims Court”) dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim on res judicata grounds. Tindall v. United States, 176 Fed. Cl. 339 (2025) (“Decision”). For the following reasons, we affirm.