Back to Blog
CAFC-ITCJuly 1, 2026·26-1518·Appeal dismissed; order issued as the mandate on July 1, 2026.

RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. ITC

International Trade Commission

Holding

The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) based on the parties’ agreement. Each side will bear its own costs.

Why It Matters

This order ends the Federal Circuit appeal without any merits ruling on the underlying ITC investigation or any patent-law issue.

Full Summary

RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. ITC The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) based on the parties’ agreement. Each side will bear its own costs. This order ends the Federal Circuit appeal without any merits ruling on the underlying ITC investigation or any patent-law issue. Appeal dismissed; order issued as the mandate on July 1, 2026. The order is nonprecedential and contains no merits analysis. The appeal arose from ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1410 involving RAI-related appellants, the ITC, and multiple vape-product intervenors. The parties agreed to dismissal, and the court dismissed under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). The court ordered each side to bear its own costs. No holding was issued on infringement, domestic industry, validity, exclusionary relief, or any other patent-law issue. non-precedential standing / jurisdiction domestic industry infringement non-precedential standing / jurisdiction domestic industry infringement non-precedential standing / jurisdiction

Key Points

  • The order is nonprecedential and contains no merits analysis.
  • The appeal arose from ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1410 involving RAI-related appellants, the ITC, and multiple vape-product intervenors.
  • The parties agreed to dismissal, and the court dismissed under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b).
  • The court ordered each side to bear its own costs.
  • No holding was issued on infringement, domestic industry, validity, exclusionary relief, or any other patent-law issue.
non-precedentialstanding / jurisdictiondomestic industryinfringement

More on this topic