# Texas Instruments, Inc. v. United States

> Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · June 3, 1982 · 681 F.2d 778

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6824521

## Case

- **Full name:** Texas Instruments, Inc. v. United States
- **Court:** Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
- **Decided:** June 3, 1982
- **Citations:** 681 F.2d 778; 69 C.C.P.A. 151; 1982 CCPA LEXIS 143
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Nies
- **Judges:** Baldwin, Markey, Miller, Nies, Rich
- **Cited by:** 20 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6824521

## Opinion text

Nies, Judge,
dissenting-in-part.
With respect to the Government’s motion for summary judgment, I would reverse solely on the ground that the court erred in holding that assembly operations may not, as a matter of law, substantially transform fabricated components into a new and different article of commerce. I would, however, affirm the denial of appellant’s motion for summary judgment. Further proceedings are necessary to determine whether a constituent material has been produced in Taiwan. I do not agree that this court should hold for appellant as a matter of law. In particular, I do not assume, as a matter of law, that every article which is of a type sold in commerce is itself an article of commerce. Nor do I agree that by characterizing the processing done in Taiwan as “manufacturing” rather than “assembly” a new and different article is necessarily created. See, e.g., Anheuser-Busch Brewing Association v. United States, 207 U.S. 556 (1908).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6824521. Public record. Not legal advice.