This morning, the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions, four nonprecedential orders, and a Rule 36 judgment. One of the opinions comes in a design patent case and includes a dissent by Chief Judge Moore. The other two opinions come in related matters, trade cases challenging decisions of the Court of International Trade. As for the nonprecedential orders, one grants a motion for remand while the others are all dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the order granting remand, along with links the dismissals and Rule 36 judgment.
Range of Motion Products, LLC v. Armaid Company Inc. (Precedential)
Range of Motion Products, LLC (“RoM”) appeals the United States District Court for the District of Maine’s grant of summary judgment of non-infringement. Range of Motion Prods. LLC v. Armaid Co., No. 1:22-CV-00091-JDL, 2023 WL 5530768 (D. Me. Aug. 28, 2023) (“Order”). For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.
Moore, Chief Judge, dissenting.
I believe a reasonable jury could find that “in the eye of the ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, [the] two designs are substantially the same.” Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511, 528 (1871). This is, of course, a fact question. I think the district court erred when it took this question away from the jury and granted summary judgement of noninfringement.
In re United States (Precedential)
In a countervailing duty or antidumping investigation, the International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) issues questionnaires to parties and third parties to collect relevant information. The Commission has adopted the practice of automatically designating questionnaire responses as confidential without regard to whether that information is designated confidential by the submitting party and without regard to whether the submitted information would be entitled to confidential treatment under the governing statute. 19 U.S.C. §§ 1516a, 1677f. The Court of International Trade (“CIT”) held that section 1516a(2)(b) of the statute (providing that “the court may examine, in camera, the confidential or privileged material, and may disclose such material under such terms and conditions as it may order”) does not abrogate the common law right of access to records of judicial proceedings and, in any event, that the Commission’s confidentiality practices are not consistent with the statute. The Commission petitions this court for a writ of mandamus primarily to compel the CIT to retain the confidentiality of questionnaire responses and to permit the Commission to continue its practice of automatically designating questionnaire responses as confidential.
In re United States (Precedential)
This is a companion case to No. 2025-127, which we have decided today in a separate opinion.
In this antidumping and countervailing duty proceeding involving mattresses, the International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) determined that an industry in the United States was materially injured by imports sold at less than fair value from Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Serbia, Thailand, Turkey, and Vietnam and by subsidized imports from China. See Mattresses from Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Serbia, Thailand, Turkey, and Vietnam, 86 Fed. Reg. 26545 (May 14, 2021).
Mertens v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential Order)
In response to this court’s December 10, 2025 order, Kevin P. Mertens files an amended Statement Concerning Discrimination abandoning the discrimination claim(s) he raised before the Merit Systems Protection Board in the underlying proceedings. Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that we have jurisdiction. See Harris v. SEC, 972 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2020).