Patent Infringement Suit Against Hyundai, Plus Antidumping Duty Case
In Dorbest Ltd. v. US, No. 09-1257, the Federal Circuit faced a challenge to the Court of International Trade's (CIT) affirmance of the Department of Commerce's calculation of the labor rate in an antidumping duty case relating to wooden bedroom furniture imported from China. First, the court invalidated 19 C.F.R. section 351.408(c)(3) and vacated the portion of the CIT's judgment affirming the Commerce's use of the regulation and remanded with instructions to require Commerce to recalculate the normal value using a method wholly in compliance with 19 U.S.C. section 1677b(c)(4). Second, the court vacated CIT's decision that required Commerce either to justify using all seven Indian surrogate companies for calculating non-production factors or to eliminate from the calculations the four smallest surrogate companies and remanded with instructions to recalculate the non-production factors using all seven surrogate companies.
In Orion IP, LLC. v. Hyundai Motor Am., No. 09-1130, the court faced a challenge to the district court's ruling of no unenforceability for inequitable conduct and denial of defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial in plaintiff's patent infringement suit against Hyundai and other automakers related to a method for assisting a salesperson in selecting appropriate parts corresponding to a customer's particularized need using a computerized system.
The court reversed the district court's judgment that claims 1,7,and 8 are valid in concluding that these claims are anticipated as a matter of law, and held that no new trial is warranted. However, the court affirmed the district court's ruling that the '627 patent is not unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.