In Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc. v. US, No. 09-1493, the Federal Circuit faced a challenge to the decision of the Court of International Trade (CIT) affirming a Customs and Border Protection classification of Honda's oil bolts under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). In affirming the decision, the court held that the CIT properly interpreted and applied the Schedule in concluding that articles that are "parts of general use" under Chapter 73 cannot be classified as "parts and accessories" under Chapter 87.
Haemonetics Corp. v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., No. 09-1557, concerned a challenge to the district court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff in plaintiff's suit for infringement of a patent, which claims a compact blood centrifuge device for separating and collecting components in a liquid such as blood.
Frist, the court held that, because "centrifugal unit" in claim 16 consistently means a vessel and a plurality of tubes, irrespective of its meaning in claim 1, district court erred in its claim construction, and is thus reversed. Next, the court held that the district court's holding that claim 16 is not indefinite as a matter of law and the jury's finding that the patent was not invalid due to anticipation or obviousness is vacated because the district court erred in its construction of "centrifugal unit" and because the jury's verdict relied on the district court's incorrect claim construction.