Legal News

Case Summaries

Commercial Law

[06/28] Bilski v. Kappos
In a patent application seeking protection for a claimed invention explaining how commodities buyers and sellers in the energy market could protect, or hedge, against the risk of price changes, the denial of the application is affirmed where: 1) the machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. section 101; 2) Section 101 precluded a reading of the term "process" that would categorically exclude business methods; and 3) even though petitioners' application was not categorically outside of section 101 under the two atextual approaches the Court rejected today, that did not mean it was a "process" under section 101.

[06/25] Rathborne Land Co. v. Ascent Engy., Inc.
In an action for breach of defendant's obligations to reasonably develop and explore a leased parcel of oil, gas, and mineral land, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiff's letter to defendant met the La. Rev. Stat. Ann. section 31:136 demand requirement; and 2) district court did not clearly err in concluding that plaintiff would have been able to lease the disputed acreage more than once if it had been able to seismically survey the parcel prior to 2006. However, the judgment is vacated in part where neither the district court nor plaintiff could show an adequate ground -- indeed, any relevant precedent -- for awarding consequential damages for lost leasing and seismic revenues on the entire parcel.

[06/25] Bagby Elevator Co. v. Schindler Elevator Corp.
In an action for tortious interference with contract, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) under the court's highly deferential standard of review, there was no reversible error in the district court's decision to use the pattern jury instruction; 2) there was sufficient evidence of both malice and gross negligence to support an award of exemplary damages; and 3) there was ample evidence of causation to support the verdict.

Read More

Immigration Law

[06/25] Dale v. Holder
In a petition for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding petitioner's order of removal under 8 U.S.C. section 1101(a)(43)(F) for being convicted of an aggravated felony, the petition is granted where: 1) although the argument petitioner presented to the BIA was not identical to that which he raised in his petition for review, the arguments were sufficiently related to establish that he presented his ground for relief to the administrative agency in the first instance; and 2) the BIA erred as a matter of law in concluding that petitioner could not legally plead guilty to an attempted violation of N.Y. Penal Law 120.10(3) or (4).

[06/25] US v. Buzo-Zepeda
Defendant's sentence for reentry into the U.S. following deportation is affirmed where a "Johnson waiver" in California state court had no effect on the determination of whether a defendant qualifies for a point increase under United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual section 4A1.1, Criminal History Category.

[06/25] Diaz-Garcia v. Holder
A Colombian citizen's petition for review of a decision denying his applications for asylum and related relief is denied as the IJ's negative credibility assessment regarding petitioner's allegations that he was threatened by the FARC Guerrillas was amply supported by a specific and cogent explanation based on substantial evidence.

Read More

International Law

[06/23] Thach v. Tiger Corp.
In a negligence, products liability, and breach of warranty action against the Japanese manufacturer of a rice cooker which allegedly caused a fire at plaintiffs' home, judgment on the pleadings for defendant is affirmed where plaintiffs had failed to serve defendant within South Dakota's three-year statute of limitations, because delivery of plaintiffs' request for service to the Japanese Foreign Affairs Ministry on either December 7 or 19 did not toll the limitations period under S.D. Stat. 15-2-31 before its expiration on December 11, 2007.

[06/21] Golan v. Holder
In an action challenging the constitutionality of Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), which granted copyright protection to various foreign works that were previously in the public domain in the U.S., summary judgment for plaintiffs is reversed where: 1) the government's interest in securing protections abroad for American copyright holders satisfied this substantial government interest standard; 2) Congress had substantial evidence from which it could reasonably conclude that the ongoing harms to American authors were real and not merely conjectural; and 3) there was substantial evidence from which Congress could conclude that Section 514 would alleviate these harms to American copyright holders.

[06/21] Target Corp. v. US
Court of International Trade's affirmance of the U.S. Department of Commerce's final affirmative circumvention determination that petroleum wax candles with 50% or more vegetable wax are later-developed merchandise covered by the anti-dumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from China is affirmed as Commerce's reasonable interpretation of the relevant Congressional statute is entitled to Chevron deference and it's determination rested on substantial evidence.

Read More

International Trade

[06/18] Michael Simon Design, Inc. v. US
In an appeal brought by three importers of foreign made goods from the Court of International Trade's denial of their request for judicial review of certain modifications to the U.S. Tariff schedule made by Presidential proclamation, the decision is affirmed where: 1) the Commission's recommendations under section 3005 are not "final" and consequently are not subject to judicial review under the APA; and 2) trial court correctly held that the Presidential proclamation at issue was not reviewable based on the claim that the Commission's recommendation was legally flawed.

[06/02] Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc. v. US
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) is affirmed as 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.

[05/28] KYD, Inc. v. US
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 is affirmed where: 1) substantial evidence supports the antidumping margin assessed against plaintiff; 2) an AFA dumping margin determined in accordance with statutory requirements is not a punitive measure; and 3) 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.

Read More