Case Summaries
International Trade
[09/03]
Allied Maritime, Inc. v. Descatrade SA
An order vacating the process of maritime attachment and garnishment issued on April 15, 2009 attaching defendant's assets to secure a putative foreign arbitral award and dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction is affirmed where the district court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over defendant’s bank account in Paris, France, the suspense account created by the bank in response to the attachment order, and any other intangible property arising from an electronic funds transfer.
[08/30]
Princo Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n
In plaintiff's patent infringement suit related to two types of digital storage devices, recordable discs (CD-Rs) and rewritable compact discs (CD-RWs), claiming that defendant was violating section 337(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 by importing CD-Rs and CD-RWs that infringed its patents, the International Trade Commission's decision that the doctrine of patent misuse does not bar intervenor-U.S. Philips Corporation from enforcing its patent rights against defendant is affirmed as, even if Phillips and Sony engaged in an agreement not to license the patent at issue for non-Orange-Book purposes, that hypothesized agreement had no bearing on the physical or temporal scope of the patents in suit, nor did it have anti-competitive effects in the relevant market. Therefore, the asserted agreement between Phillips and Sony did not constitute misuse and cannot justify rendering all of Phillips' Orange Book patents unenforceable.
[08/27]
Gen. Protecht Group, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n
The International Trade Commission's determination that the importation into the United States of certain ground fault circuit interrupters (GFCI) violated section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, in issuing limited exclusion orders against the importation of GFCI products from the petitioners and judgment finding that these products infringe the '340 patent is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded where: 1) GPG's 2003 and 2006 FCIs and ELE's 2006 GFCIs do not infringe the '340 patent, because they do not have a "detection circuit" as claimed in the patent; 2) Trimone's 2006 GFCIs and ELE's 2006 GFCIs do not infringe the '340 patent because the "load terminals" of the patent do not include receptacle outlets; 3) GPG's 2006 GFCIs do not infringe the '398 patent because GPG performs the function of the "latching means" in a substantially different way than the structure disclosed in the patent; and 4) the Commission's determination is affirmed in all other respects.
[08/27]
Pass & Seymour, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n.
In plaintiff's suit against various defendants claiming infringement of its patents related to circuit interrupters for use with household electrical appliances, the International Trade Commission's judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed as, because the accused products at issue here do not meet the "mounting means" limitation as properly construed, and thus do not meet every limitation of the asserted claims, there can be no infringement. Accordingly, Commission's finding of no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 is affirmed.
[08/19]
Leisure Caviar, LLC v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv.
In plaintiff's suit against the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and two of its employees in their official capacities, claiming that the agency failed to act on a timely basis on five permit applications for permission to export 4074.05 pounds of roe worth approximately $500,000, district court's denial of plaintiffs' Rule 59 motion to alter the order dismissing their suit is affirmed as a claimant who seeks to amend a complaint after losing the case must provide a compelling explanation to the district court for granting the motion, and here, the district court did not exceed its discretion in concluding that plaintiffs provided nothing of the sort.
[08/12]
Thai I-Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. v. US
In an anti-dumping duty case, involving frozen and canned warmwater shrimp from Thailand, the Court of International Trade's decision reversing and remanding Commerce's first remand determination is reversed as Commerce's statement of a general preference for exclusion of sales outside the ordinary course of trade where, as here, the date are for like products sold by other respondents, is reasonable. Thus, Commerce reasonably determined that in this case, where such data were readily available, and indeed had been used for the other two respondents, it was reasonable to make its determination excluding sales outside the ordinary course of trade.
[07/21]
Forestal Guarani S.A. v. Daros Int'l, Inc.
In an Argentinian corporation's breach of contract suit against a New Jersey corporation under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, district court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is vacated and remanded where: 1) the district court incorrectly concluded that Argentina's declaration, opting out of the provision in the Convention allowing a contract to be proved even if it was not in writing, imposed a writing requirements and that the absence of a written contract in this case precluded the plaintiff's claim; and 2) where, as here, one party's country of incorporation has made a declaration while the other's has not, a court must first decide, based on the forum state's choice-of-law rules, which forum's law applies, and then apply the law of the forum designated by the choice-of-law analysis.
[07/16]
Micei Int'l v. Dep't of Comm.
In a petition for review of the Department of Commerce's order sanctioning petitioner for alleged violations of export regulations, the petition is dismissed where, because the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not contain a direct review provision, review jurisdiction resided as a first matter in federal district court.
[07/08]
Natural Resources Def. Council v. US Dep't of Agric.
In an action claiming that the Department of Agriculture failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and the Plant Protection Act when it adopted new regulations for the importation of unmanufactured wood packaging material into the United States, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where defendants considered all reasonable alternatives to the proposed rule, and did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in adopting a rule providing for either heat treatment or fumigation with methyl bromide of the wood material prior to importation.
[07/06]
Diamond Sawblades Mfr. Coation v. US
In an antidumping case involving diamond sawblades and related parts from Korea and China, decisions of the Court of International Trade are affirmed where: 1) the Court of International Trade did not abuse its discretion when it ordered remand for further consideration an original Commission determination that there was neither material injury nor threat of material injury to the domestic diamond sawblade industry; and 2) the Commission's affirmative finding that imports of sawblades and parts from China and Korea pose a threat of material injury to the domestic industry is affirmed as the Court of International Trade correctly found that the Commission's determination on remand was supported by substantial evidence.
[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.
[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.
[05/26]
Deere & Co. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n
The judgment of the International Trade Commission finding that the sales of European version self-propelled John Deere forage harvesters in the U.S. by intervenors did not violate section 337 of the Tariff Act is vacated and remanded as, although the Commission's determination that the sales of the European-version harvesters in the U.S. by official Deere dealers were authorized is supported by substantial evidence, the Commission improperly applied the "all or substantially all" test.
Back to Main
