This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, three nonprecedential orders, one Rule 36 summary affirmance, and an errata. The lone precedential opinion comes in an international trade case on appeal from the Court of International Trade. Of the nonprecedential opinions, one comes in a pro se case on appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board and the other comes in a patent case on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. All three nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmance, dismissals, and errata.
Pirelli Tyre Co. v. United States (Precedential)
Based on the United States Department of Commerce’s 2015 antidumping-duty order covering certain passenger-vehicle and light-truck tires from the People’s Republic of China (PRC), Commerce conducted an administrative review under section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. § 1675, of merchandise that was covered by the 2015 order and entered into the United States between August 1, 2017, and July 31, 2018 (the 2017–2018 administrative review). In that review, Commerce followed its practice, approved by this court since Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1405–07 (Fed. Cir. 1997), of applying a rebuttable presumption that all exporters within the “nonmarket economy” of the PRC are subject to the PRC government’s control and hence assigning such an exporter a PRC-wide antidumping-duty rate unless the exporter demonstrates independence from government control sufficient to entitle it to a separate rate. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(18). Pirelli Tyre Co., Ltd. (Pirelli China), a foreign producer and exporter of certain tires covered by the 2015 order, sought to establish such independence, but Commerce determined that it had not done so. The United States Court of International Trade (Trade Court) upheld Commerce’s determination as in accordance with the law and supported by substantial evidence. We now affirm.
Akerman v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
Mr. Akerman appeals pro se a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Board denied Mr. Akerman’s petition for review of an initial decision dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.
In re Raiz (Nonprecedential)
Appellant Haim S. Raiz seeks to overturn a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board rejecting claims as indefinite and as directed to unpatentable subject matter. We affirm.