This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and nine nonprecedential opinions. The precedential opinion comes in a case appealed from the Court of International Trade in an antidumping case. Of the nonprecedential opinions, five come in patent cases, three come in cases appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and one was appealed from the District of Oregon in a case raising Quiet Title Act and inverse condemnation claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
AG Der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States (Precedential)
In this antidumping case, appellants Ilsenburger Grobblech GmbH, Salzgitter Flachstahl GmbH, Salzgitter Mannesmann Grobblech GmbH, and Salzgitter Mannesmann International GmbH (collectively, “Salzgitter”) appeal from a decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade (“Trade Court”) sustaining the Department of Commerce’s application of partial adverse facts available to impose a final dumping margin of 22.9 percent on Salzgitter’s steel plate products.
Commerce applied an adverse inference based on its determination that Salzgitter failed to cooperate to the best of its ability with one of Commerce’s requests for information. We hold that, although Commerce’s information request imposed an unreasonable burden on Salzgitter, Commerce’s application of an adverse inference was permissible because Salzgitter failed to propose reasonable alternative forms of the missing information as required by statute. We reject Salzgitter’s other contentions and accordingly affirm.
Chinook Landing, LLC v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Chinook Landing, LLC (“Chinook”), as personal representative of the estate of John Lund, appeals from a decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon granting the United States’ summary judgment motion. Lund v. United States, No. 19-02015, 2023 WL 2572613, at *1 (D. Or. Mar. 17, 2023) (adopting Findings and Recommendation, 2022 WL 19039088 (D. Or. Dec. 7, 2022) (“Decision”), as the final decision). The district court found Mr. Lund’s Quiet Title Act (“QTA”) and inverse condemnation claims against the government untimely under the applicable statutes of limitations. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
Express Mobile, Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Express Mobile, Inc. appeals the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s Final Written Decision in an inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,594,168 that held all challenged claims unpatentable. Because the Board applied an erroneous construction of the claim term “style,” we vacate the Board’s decision and remand for further proceedings
Harris v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Wendy Harris, the surviving spouse of veteran Willie B. Harris, appeals the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) in Harris v. McDonough, No. 22-1654, 2023 WL 7145469 (Vet. App. Oct. 31, 2023); J.A. 1–7.1 Ms. Harris seeks an earlier effective date for Mr. Harris’s grant of service connection for degenerative joint disease of his left hip. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7292. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the decision of the Veterans Court.
Roku, Inc. v. International Trade Commission (Nonprecedential)
Roku challenges the ITC’s determinations that asserted claim 10 of the ’875 patent is invalid and that it failed to satisfy the domestic industry requirement. At oral argument, counsel for Roku acknowledged that if we affirm the final written decision of the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) with respect to claim 10 in copending Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., No. 24-1188, argued the same day as this case, then this appeal would be moot. See Oral Arg. at 2:35–2:43, available at https://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx ?fl=23-1317_05082025.mp3. We have today affirmed the Board’s decision with respect to that claim. See Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., No. 24-1188, slip op. 10–11, 13, — F. App’x —, — (Fed. Cir. June 17, 2025). This appeal is therefore moot as to the ’875 patent.
Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Roku, Inc. owns U.S. Patent 8,378,875 (“the ’875 patent”), which is directed to methods of programming a universal remote control. Universal Electronics, Inc., Gemstar Technology (Qinzhou) Co. Ltd., Gemstar Technology (Yangzhou) Co. Ltd., C.G. Development Ltd., Universal Electronics BV, CG México Remote Controls, S. de R.L. de C.V., and UEI Brasil Controles Remotos Ltda. (collectively, “UEI”) petitioned for inter partes review of the ’875 patent, arguing that claims 1–5, 8–10, and 14 would have been obvious over the Radio Shack Phone Up 4 Remote Control Owner’s Manual (“RadioShack”) and that claim 11 would have been obvious over International Patent Application Publication 2003/083801 (“Wouters”) and International Patent Application Publication 2000/070577 (“Verzulli”).
The Board instituted review of all challenged claims and concluded that: (1) UEI had shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that RadioShack was publicly accessible prior to the ’875 patent’s critical date and was therefore available as prior art; (2) UEI had shown that dependent claims 1–5, 8–10, and 14 would have been obvious over RadioShack; and (3) UEI had not shown that independent claim 11 would have been obvious over Wouters and Verzulli. Universal Elecs., Inc. v. Roku, Inc., No. IPR2022-00818, 2023 WL 6976666 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2023)(“Decision”). Roku timely appealed, and UEI timely crossappealed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). For the following reasons, we affirm-in-part, vacate-inpart, and remand.
Shaw v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Appellant Elaine B. Shaw, the surviving spouse of veteran William J. Shaw, appeals a decision from the Veterans Court holding that (1) it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate her claims on appeal because there was no decision from the Board of Veterans’ Appeals adjudicating those claims, and (2) she forfeited any challenge to the Board’s denial of her husband’s prior Clear and Unmistakable Error claim. The Veterans Court correctly declined to exercise jurisdiction over Mrs. Shaw’s claims, which it determined were new claims raised for the first time on appeal. We lack jurisdiction to review the Veterans Court’s determination that Mrs. Shaw forfeited any challenge to the Board’s decision because a finding of forfeiture is based on factual findings and the application of law to fact, neither of which we are permitted to review under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). Thus, we affirm-in-part and dismiss-in-part
Shulman v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Benjamin Shulman appeals the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims dismissing his challenge to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals remand order for lack of jurisdiction. Because the Board remanded his case for further development and did not reach a decision on his claims, we affirm the Veterans Court’s dismissal.
Xerox Corporation v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
In our opinion in Xerox Corp. v. X Corp., No. 23-1913 (Fed. Cir. June 17, 2025), issued concomitantly with this opinion, we affirmed the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding all claims (1–18) of U.S. Patent No. 7,043,475 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The instant appeal involves a subset of those very claims: 1–3, 5, 7, 10–12, and 15–16. For the reasons we explained in Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.com, Inc., 976 F.3d 1316, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2020), this appeal is rendered moot in light of our decision in X Corp. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.
Xerox Corp. v. X Corp. (Nonprecedential)
Xerox Corp. (“Xerox”) appeals the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding claims 1–18 of U.S. Patent No. 7,043,475 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. On appeal, Xerox challenges the Board’s construction of the claim term “determining proximal information,” the Board’s findings related to motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success, and the Board’s analysis of Xerox’s alleged objective evidence of nonobviousness. For the following reasons, we affirm.