Circuit Watcher

AGFA Corp. v. U.S. , Fed. Cir. Mar. 24, 2008

admin — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 06:31:21 +0000

07-1430 AGFA Corp. v. U.S.
Before LOURIE, Circuit Judge, CLEVENGER, Senior Circuit Judge, and PROST, Circuit Judge.
LOURIE, Circuit Judge. Agfa Corporation (“Agfa”) appeals from the decision of the United States Court of International Trade granting final judgment in favor of the United States and holding that United States Customs and Border Patrol (“Customs”) properly classified imported metal plates coated with a photosensitive emulsion under subheading 3701.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Because the Court of International Trade correctly classified the merchandise, we affirm. … AGFA Corp. v. U.S.

Computer Docking Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc., Fed. Cir. Mar. 21, 2008

admin — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 06:55:01 +0000

07-1169 Computer Docking Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc.
Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge, and RADER, Circuit Judge.
RADER, Circuit Judge. On summary judgment, the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin determined that Dell, Inc., Gateway, Inc., Toshiba America, Inc., and Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. (collectively Defendants) did not infringe claims 17-20, 22, 24, and 26-28 of Computer Docking Station Corporation’s (CDSC’s) United States Patent No. 5,187,645 (’645 patent). Computer Docking Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc., Case No. 06-C-0032-C, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2419 (W.D. Wis. Jan. 10, 2007) (Summary Judgment Order). Because the patentee disavowed an interpretation of “portable computer” that would encompass a computer with a built-in display or keyboard, this court affirms the district court’s holding of no infringement. This court also affirms the district court’s finding that the case was not exceptional and that attorney fees were not warranted under 35 U.S.C. § 285. … Computer Docking Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc.

General Injectables & Vaccines, Inc. v. Gates, Fed. Cir. Mar. 19, 2008

admin — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 06:44:20 +0000

07-1119 General Injectables & Vaccines, Inc. v. Gates
Before MAYER and BRYSON, Circuit Judges, and FOGEL, District Judge.¹
BRYSON, Circuit Judge. General Injectables & Vaccines, Inc. (“GIV”) appeals a decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals affirming the termination of a government contract for default. We affirm. … General Injectables & Vaccines, Inc. v. Gates.

Honorable Jeremy Fogel, District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation. [↩]

Fuji Am. Corp. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. Mar. 19, 2008

admin — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 06:42:25 +0000

06-1653, 07-1177 Fuji Am. Corp. v. U.S.
Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and SCHALL, Circuit Judges.
LOURIE, Circuit Judge. Fuji America Corporation (“Fuji”) appeals from the United States Court of International Trade’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the United States, classifying Fuji’s chip placer machines under subheading 8479.89.9797 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2001) (“HTSUS”). Fuji Am. Corp. v. United States, 28 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 2199 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2006). The government cross-appeals the portion of the trial court’s judgment classifying Fuji’s parts feeders under HTSUS subheading 8479.90.9595. Because the court correctly classified the imported goods, we affirm. … Fuji Am. Corp. v. U.S.

Amgen, Inc. v. ITC, Fed. Cir. Mar. 19, 2008

admin — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 06:33:44 +0000

07-1014 Amgen, Inc. v. ITC
Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and LINN, Circuit Judges.
NEWMAN, Circuit Judge. By complaint to the International Trade Commission under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337, Amgen, Inc. charged that certain importations of recombinant human erythropoietin and derivatives thereof (collectively “EPO”) are in violation of Section 337. Amgen charged that the imported EPO and the process by which it is produced in Europe are covered by one or more claims of the following Amgen United States patents: Patent No. 5,411,868 (claims 1 and 2); Patent No. 5,547,933 (claims 3, 4, 5, and 11); Patent No. 5,618,698 (claims 4-9)¹; Patent No. 5,621,080 (claims 4 and 6); Patent No. 5,756,349 (claim 7); and Patent No. 5,955,422 (claim 1). The Intervenors Roche Holding Ltd., F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd., Roche Diagnostics GmbH, and Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. (collectively “Roche”) are producers and importers of the accused EPO.
.
Roche moved for summary determination of noninfringement as to all claims, on the ground that the imported EPO is exempt from infringement by operation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1), the “safe harbor” statute, because the imported EPO is used only for the statutorily exempt purpose of the development and submission of information under a federal law regulating the manufacture, sale, and use of drugs. The Commission granted the motion for noninfringement, holding that all of Roche’s activities are within the safe harbor, including the foreign production of the imported product. Amgen appeals this ruling, on the principal ground that the safe harbor statute does not apply to Tariff Act violations based on foreign practice of patented processes, and also on the ground that not all of the imported EPO was used for the statute’s exempt purposes.
.
We affirm the Commission’s ruling that the safe harbor provided by § 271(e)(1) applies in proceedings under the Tariff Act relating to process patents as well as product patents, for imported product that is used for exempt purposes. … Amgen, Inc. v. ITC.

Claims 4 and 5 of Patent No. 5,618,698 were removed from the case during the pendency of this appeal. [↩]

Gerdau Ameristeel Corp. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. Mar. 12, 2008

admin — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 23:59:07 +0000

07-1143 CIT Gerdau Ameristeel Corp. v. U.S.
Before NEWMAN and DYK, Circuit Judges, and YEAKEL,¹ District Judge.
NEWMAN, Circuit Judge. Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation appeals the ruling of the United States Court of International Trade, dismissing as moot Gerdau’s action for review of an antidumping order pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2).² We vacate the dismissal and remand for further proceedings. … Gerdau Ameristeel Corp. v. U.S.

Hon. Lee Yeakel, United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, sitting by designation. [↩]
Gerdau Ameristeel Corp. v. United States, 442 F. Supp. 2d 1367 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2006). [↩]

Parrott v. MSPB, Fed. Cir. Mar. 12, 2008

admin — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 23:52:03 +0000

07-3119 MSPB Parrott v. MSPB
Before SCHALL, BRYSON, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
SCHALL, Circuit Judge. Jeffrey W. Parrott is a former employee of the Transportation Security Administration (“TSA” or “agency”), Department of Homeland Security. He resigned from his position with TSA on May 27, 2005. Subsequently, he appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”), alleging that his resignation was involuntary and therefore constituted a constructive removal. Following a hearing, the administrative judge (“AJ”) to whom the appeal was assigned issued an initial decision in which he held that Mr. Parrott had failed to establish that his resignation was involuntary. Parrott v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. DC-0752-06-0058-I-1, slip op. at 16 (M.S.P.B. Feb. 22, 2006) (“Initial Decision”). He therefore dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Id. The AJ’s initial decision became the final decision of the Board on December 4, 2006, when the Board denied Mr. Parrott’s petition for review for failure to meet the criteria for review set forth at 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115(d). Parrott v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 104 M.S.P.R. 171 (2006) (“Final Decision”). Mr. Parrott petitions for review, and the Department of Homeland Security has intervened. We affirm. … Parrott v. MSPB.

Fifth Third Bank v. U.S., Fed. Cir. Mar. 10, 2008

admin — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 20:15:08 +0000

06-5128 CFC Fifth Third Bank v. U.S.
Before BRYSON, Circuit Judge, PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge, and KEELEY,¹ Chief District Judge.
PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge. This is another Winstar-related case, in which a banking institution alleges that it was financially injured, wrongfully, by actions of the United States Government and its regulatory agencies. This particular case has a long history, resulting thus far in eight published opinions by the trial court and an earlier one by this court. The full details of the proceedings to this point can be found in the trial court’s most recent opinion. … Fifth Third Bank v. U.S.