Today the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions and two nonprecedential opinions. The precedential opinions come in veterans and trade cases, while the nonprecedential opinions come in patent and veterans cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Ley v. Collins (Precedential)
Richard J. Ley appeals a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) affirming the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) denial of an earlier effective date for his service-connected chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). For the following reasons, we affirm the Veterans Court decision.
Archroma U.S., Inc. v. Department of Commerce (Precedential)
This case, which is before us on review from the Court of International Trade (“Trade Court”), asks us to decide whether a filing deadline imposed by a regulation issued by the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) conflicts with the statute governing “sunset reviews” of antidumping duty orders. The Trade Court found such a conflict and, thus, declared Commerce’s regulation void, enjoining its enforcement.
We see the situation differently. The applicable statute is silent as to when a domestic interested party must indicate an intent to participate in a sunset review, and Commerce’s regulatory requirement that such parties do so within 15 days after Commerce issues notice of initiating a review was the product of reasoned decisionmaking within the bounds of the agency’s delegated power. Therefore, the regulation is a permissible exercise of the agency’s authority. We reverse the contrary judgment of the Trade Court.
In re WAG Acquisition, LLC (Nonprecedential)
WAG Acquisition, LLC (“WAG”) appeals from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) finding claims 1 and 4 of its U.S. Patent No. 8,327,011 (the “’011 patent”) unpatentable as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,005,600 (“Hill”). We affirm.
Guzman v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Maria V. Guzman, surviving spouse of veteran Cesar A. Flores-Rivera, appeals a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) affirming a Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) denial of entitlement to an earlier dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) effective date. For the following reasons, we dismiss-in-part and affirm-in-part.