Federal Circuit: October 2010 Archives
Federal Circuit - The FindLaw Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries Blog

October 2010 Archives

Gilda Indus., Inc. v. US, 09-1492

Gilda Indus., Inc. v. US, 09-1492, concerned the government's challenge to the decision of the Court of International Trade holding that a retaliatory duty order assessing duties against certain imports of a Spanish company had terminated by operation of law in ordering liquidation of the company's goods without assessment of the duty, and ordering the government to refund, with interest, the 100 percent ad valorem duty the company paid on products imported after the retaliatory duties expired.  In affirming, the court held that the retaliatory action at issue here terminated by operation of law on July 29, 2007, for it is undisputed that no requests for continuation of the retaliatory list were received within the 60-day window specified be section 2417(c)(1).

Related Link:

Solvay SA v. Honeywell Int'l Inc., 09-1161

Solvay SA v. Honeywell Int'l Inc., 09-1161, involved a suit for infringement of a patent, directed to methods for making 1,1,1,3,3-pentafluoropropane (non-ozone depleting hydrofluorocarbon).  In reversing in part, the court held that the district court erred in ruling claims 1, 5, 7, 10, and 11 of the '817 patent invalid as defendant was not a prior inventor for purposes of section 102(g)(2).  However, the court affirmed in part as the district court did not err in ruling that claims 1, 5, 7, 10, and 11 of the '817 patent were infringed.  Lastly, the court held that the district court did not err in ruling that claims 12-18, 21 and 22 were not infringed.

Related Link:

Holland v. US, 09-5095

Finding of Liability Against the Government For Breach of Contract in a Winstar Case Reversed

Holland v. US, 09-5095, concerned a challenge to the the Court of Federal Claims' holding that the government is liable for breach of contract, in a Winstar case.  In reversing, the court held that the plaintiffs' release of all claims against the FDIC as manager of the FSLIC Resolution Fund (FRF) in the settlement agreement effected a release of all claims against co-obligor, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS).  The court also held that, alternatively, plaintiffs' accord and satisfaction with the FDIC as manager of the FRF in the settlement agreement discharged the OTS.

Related Link:

Smiley v. Dep't of Defense, 10-3039

Merit Systems Protection Board's Decision Sustaining Petitioner's Removal From His Position at the Defense Logistics Agency Affirmed

Smiley v. Dep't of Defense, 10-3039, concerned a challenge to a final decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board's (Board) sustaining petitioner's removal from the position of Supervisory Supply Technician at the Defense Logistics Agency's New Cumberland, Pennsylvania facility.  In affirming, the court held that a review of the record demonstrates that substantial evidence supports the Board's decision sustaining petitioner's removal.  Further, the record is clear that the deciding official considered each of the pertinent Douglas factors, and, where appropriate, gave petitioner mitigating credit.

Related Link:

Walgreen Co. of Deerfield, Il. v. US, 10-1136

Walgreen Co. of Deerfield, Il. v. US, 10-1136, concerned a challenge to the Court of International Trade's affirmance of a decision by the Department of Commerce, that certain tissue paper contained in Walgreen's "Gift Bag to Go" gift bag sets are within the scope of an earlier antidumping order covering certain tissue paper from the People's Republic of China.  In affirming, the court held that substantial evidence supports the Commerce's decision that, based on the language of the Final Order, the (k)(1) criteria were dispositive of the scope determination.

Related Link:

Teva Pharm., USA, Inc. v. Eisai Co. Ltd., 09-1593

Teva Pharm., USA, Inc. v. Eisai Co. Ltd., 09-1593, concerned a challenge to the district court's judgment dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction, in an action for a declaratory judgment brought by Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Teva), that its generic version of the drug donepezil does not infringe four of defendant's Orange Book patents for use in treating Alzheimer's disease.

 

U.S. Steel Corp. v. U.S., 09-1572

U.S. Steel Corp. v. U.S., 09-1572, concerned a challenge to a decision of the United States Court of International Trade upholding the Department of Commerce's determination of antidumping duties against an importer of hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from the Netherlands.  In affirming, the court held that the Court of International Trade properly exercised its jurisdiction over the Section 129 claim.  The court also held that the Court of International Trade properly found that Commerce's interpretation of its governing statute is in accordance with law as section 1677f-1(d) does not manifest a clear Congressional intent that zeroing methodology be used.

Related Resource:

In re Chippendales USA, Inc., 09-1370

In re Chippendales USA, Inc., 09-1370, concerned a challenge to the the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's (Board) affirmance of the examining attorney's refusal to register plaintiff's mark as inherently distinctive, in plaintiff's application seeking to register its Cuffs & Collar mark as inherently distinctive for "adult entertainment services, namely exotic dancing for women," in the nature of live performances.  In affirming the judgment, the court held that the Board's determination that the Cuffs & Collar mark was not inherently distinctive is supported by substantial evidence, and plaintiff's additional arguments for setting aside the Board's decision are without merit.

Related Resource: