This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion affirms the judgment of the Court of International Trade, which dismissed a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The first nonprecedential opinion vacates judgments of non-infringement and invalidity and reverses an exceptional case finding in a patent case. The second nonprecedential opinion affirms a dismissal in a pro se case. The order is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.
J.D. Irving, Ltd. v. United States (Precedential)
The sole issue in this appeal is whether the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) erred in holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i), the CIT’s residual grant of jurisdiction. J.D. Irving (JDI), a Canadian producer, exporter, and importer of merchandise subject to a January 2018 antidumping duty order on certain softwood lumber products from Canada, appeals the CIT’s dismissal of its case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Although JDI acknowledged that its action would normally arise under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c), it asserted that the CIT has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to § 1581(i). We determine that jurisdiction under § 1581(c) could have been available to JDI absent binational panel review because (1) the true nature of JDI’s suit is a challenge to the Final Results of a second administrative review, and (2) JDI has not met its burden to show that administrative review and binational panel review would be manifestly inadequate. Because jurisdiction under § 1581(i) is strictly limited and may not be invoked when jurisdiction under § 1581(c) could have been available, we affirm the CIT’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under § 1581(i).
Applications in Internet Time, LLC. v. Salesforce, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Applications in Internet Time (“AIT”) appeals the grants of summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,356,482 (the “’482 patent”) and 8,484,111 (the “’111 patent”). See Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. Sallesforce.com, Inc., 691 F. Supp. 3d 1223, 1228, 1230–31 (D. Nev. 2023) (“Summary Judgment Order”). Further, AIT challenges the district court’s construction of “automatically detecting” as requiring the use of intelligent agents. See Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. Salesforce.com, Inc., No. 3:13-CV-00628-RCJ-CLB, 2021 WL 5238767, at *13, (D. Nev. Nov. 9, 2021) (“Markman Order”). AIT also appeals the district court’s conclusion that its case was exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and the award of nearly $6.9 million in attorneys’ fees. See Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. Salesforce, Inc., 3:13-CV-00628-RCJ-CLB, 2024 WL 1199594, at *6 (D. Nev. Mar. 20, 2024) (“Fee Order”).
For the reasons that follow, we modify the district court’s claim construction of “automatically detecting,” vacate the district court’s grants of summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity, and reverse its exceptional case determination.
Knighton v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Frank E. Knighten, Jr. appeals pro se from a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) dismissing his complaint sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that he seeks relief for the actions of his private employer and not the United States. See Order of Dismissal, Knighten v. United States, No. 24-cv-43-AOB (Fed. Cl. Jan. 31, 2024), ECF No. 7. Because the Claims Court did not err in dismissing Mr. Knighten’s complaint, we affirm.