Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Sinochem v. ITC, No. 09-1563 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 17, 2009)

Dismissed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 09-1563
Decided
December 17, 2009
Judge
Schall, J.
Document
Order on Motion
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-1563

SINOCHEM MODERN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

CHEMICALS (XI'AN) CO., LTD., SINOCHEM ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION CHEMICALS (TAICANG) CO., LTD.,

SINOCHEM NINGBO LTD., and SINOCHEM (U.S.A.) INC.,

Appeliants,

Vv.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Appellee.

On Appeal from the United States International Trade Commission in

Investigation No. 337-TA-623.

ON MOTION

Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, SCHALL and LINN, Circuit Judges.

Figure on page 1 of the opinion

ORDER

The International Trade Commission moves to dismiss this appeal. Sinochem Modern Environmental Protection Chemicals (XI'AN) Co. Ltd. et al. (Sinochem) oppose.

Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1337(c), only a party adversely affected by a final determination of the ITC may appeal to this court. Surface Technology, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 780 F.2d 29, 30 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Here, the ITC made a final determination of no Section 337 violation. The complainants filed an appeal in this court, 2009-1513. Sinochem also filed an appeal, in the nature of a cross-appeal, on the ground that the ITC rejected some of its patent invalidity arguments. However, it is2 only nécessary and appropriate to file a cross-appeal when a party seeks to enlarge its own rights under the judgment or to lessen the rights of its adversary under the judgment. Bailey v. Dart Container Corp. of Michigan, 292 F.3d 1360, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). Thus, a party must file a cross-appeal when acceptance of the argument it wishes to advance would result in a reversal or modification of the judgment, rather than an afÏrmance. Id. That is not the case here because even if Sinochem’s arguments concerning invalidity are accepted, the final determination would still be one of no Section 337 violation, which would result in an afÏrmance. Sinochem may raise its arguments concerning invalidity in its brief as an appellee in 2009-1513.

Figure on page 2 of the opinion
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion to dismiss this appeal is granted. All other pending motions are moot.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT

DEC 1 7 2009

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Date Jan Horbaly

Clerk

ce: Alex Menchaca, Esq. vs.c ourt HL For

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT Paul M. Bartkowski, Esq.

$19 DEC 17 2009

MANDATE: DEC 17 2009 JAN HORBALY

ISSUED AS A

2009-1563 2

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Sinochem v. ITC, No. 09-1563 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 17, 2009).

Record ID
CAFC-09-1563-20091217
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-09-1563-20091217

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.