Late Friday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. This morning, the court released two nonprecedential opinions and another nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. One of the opinions comes in an appeal of a decision of the International Trade Commission; the other comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.
Dometic Corp. v. International Trade Commission (Nonprecedential)
Dometic Corp. and Dometic Sweden AB (together, Dometic) filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission against Citimarine, L.L.C., Mabru Power Systems, Inc., Shanghai Hopewell Industrial Co. Ltd., and Shanghai Hehe Industrial Co. Ltd. (collectively, Citimarine), seeking an order to block importation of certain products under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337. Dometic asserted, as now relevant, that the products infringe claims 1–2, 4–5, 7, and 18–22 of its U.S. Patent No. 8,056,351, whose subject is an air conditioning device for nautical vehicles. The Commission denied relief to Dometic on claims 1–2, 4–5, and 7 on the ground that those claims are invalid for anticipation. The Commission denied relief to Dometic on claims 18–22 on two related grounds—that the accused imported products do not infringe those claims and that the domestic products asserted to meet section 337’s domestic-industry requirement do not come within the claims. We now affirm.
Gersten v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Peter Gersten appeals a decision by the Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) dismissing his complaint on the grounds of nonjusticiability and for failure to state a claim. We conclude that the Air Force Board for the Correction of Military Records’ (the “Board’s”) decision denying relief is justiciable, at least in part. On the merits, we conclude that the Board’s decision regarding the Secretary’s decision to retire Mr. Gersten at the grade of O-6 was not arbitrary and capricious and was supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we conclude that, although the complaint should not have been dismissed, the government was nonetheless entitled to judgment on the administrative record. We therefore vacate the dismissal and remand with instructions to enter judgment on the administrative record in favor of the government.