Friday, July 17, 2020

Appellant Mayborn loses at ITC, and then at the CAFC

The outcome

Mayborn Group, Ltd., and Mayborn USA, Inc.,
(collectively, “Mayborn”) appeal from a decision of the
United States International Trade Commission (the
“Commission”), denying its petition for rescission of a
general exclusion order prohibiting importation of products
that infringe U.S. Patent 8,028,850 (the “’850 patent”).
Certain Self-Anchoring Beverage Containers, Inv. No. 337-
TA-1092, USITC Pub. 4984, 2019 WL 2174055, at *1 (May
17, 2019) (Rescission Petition) (“Decision”). Because the
Commission did not err in denying the petition, we affirm.

The technology

The Complainants own the ’850 patent, which discloses
a self-anchoring beverage container that prevents spills by
anchoring the container to a surface by means of a “flexible
nonporous base member adapted to seal to a reference surface.” ’850 patent, Abstract. The seal is broken when the
handle is lifted, and a user can move the container normally.

Consumer Watchdog is cited:

We agree with Mayborn that it has standing to appeal.
“[A]ny person” may petition the Commission for rescission
or modification of an exclusion order, subject to certain conditions. 19 C.F.R. § 210.76(a)(1). Nonetheless, a party
seeking judicial review of a Commission determination
must establish that it presents a case or controversy for
which the federal courts have jurisdiction under Article III
of the United States Constitution. See Phigenix, Inc. v. Immunogen, Inc., 845 F.3d 1168, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016); Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693, 704 (2013)). A party has
Article III standing to appeal from a decision of an administrative agency when it has: (1) suffered a particularized,
concrete injury in fact that is (2) fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant and is (3) likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. Spokeo, 136 S. Ct.
at 1547; Consumer Watchdog v. Wis. Alumni Research
Found., 753 F.3d 1258, 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2014).


Post a Comment

<< Home