Skip to main content

Decisions in IP Matters, Plus Antidumping Case

By FindLaw Staff on May 28, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

In KYD, Inc. v. US, No.09-1366, the Federal Circuit faced a challenge to a decision of the Court of International Trade affirming the Department of Commerce's antidumping duty rate determination for polyethylene retail carrier bags that are manufactured by a Thai company and imported by plaintiff.  In affirming the decision, the court held that substantial evidence supports the antidumping margin assessed against plaintiff, and that the AFA dumping margin determined in accordance with statutory requirements is not a punitive measure.  Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff does not point to any statute or regulation that would entitle independent importers to a different assessment rate from the rate for importers that are affiliated with the foreign producer/exporters of the goods they import.     

Leviton Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Universal Sec. Instruments, Inc., No. 09-1421, concerned a challenge to the district court's award of attorney fees and costs to plaintiff based on inequitable conduct and vexatious litigation in a patent infringement suit.  In vacating the judgment, the court held that genuine issues of material fact exist that preclude summary judgment for inequitable conduct, and that the district court clearly erred by finding that defendant engaged in vexatious litigation by raising frivolous work-product objections. 

Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. Ablaise Ltd., No.09-1524,  concerned a patent infringement suit, directed to methods for using a Web server to send individualized content and formatting instructions in the form of Web pages.  In affirming in part, the court held that the district court's grant of summary judgment of invalidity of the '737 patent is correct on grounds of obviousness under the prior art in view of general knowledge in the field.  However, the district court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss Dow Jones' invalidity claim against one patent is reversed as a covenant not to sue proffered by defendant extinguishes the controversy between the parties and divests the district court of its Article III jurisdiction. 

Related Resources:

Copied to clipboard