Justia International Trade Opinion Summaries

The company filed a claim under the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, asserting infringement of its patents on microchip encapsulation innovations. The ITC found no violation. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Substantial evidence supported the finding of no infringement of one patent by 17 of 18 defendants. The court also affirmed the ITC's determination that the patent was not anticipated and its finding of patent exhaustion with respect to the eighteenth defendant. The claims with respect to other patents, which have expired, are moot.

The defendant, a dual-citizen of the U.S. and Iran and a chemical engineer, marketed a dynamic software program to Iranian actors and agreed to provide Iranian entities with technology for construction of chemical plants, with a goal of converting Iran into a chemical powerhouse. His efforts included contacting President Ahmadinejad to unveil his plan to help Iran, with respect to the United States' "cruel and tyrannical" treatment of the Iranian people. He was convicted on 10 chargesâfour counts stemming from violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), three counts of making false statements, and three counts of bank fraud and sentenced to a four years imprisonment. The Third Circuit affirmed, rejecting a challenge to the constitutionality of the IEEPA and Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control regulations. The law meaningfully constrains the President's discretion and does not violate the separation of powers doctrine. The government proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant's operation does not fall within the informational-materials exemption of the Act. The regulations are not unconstitutionally vague.

QT Trading, L.P. ("QT") sued defendants for rust damage to its steel pipes that allegedly occurred during their transport from Dalian, China to Houston, Texas. At issue was whether the district court properly granted summary judgment to in personam defendants on QT's claims for damages under the Carriage of Goods at Sea Act ("COGSA"), 46 U.S.C. 30701 note (Carriage of Goods by Sea), and for negligent bailment of its goods. The court affirmed summary judgment and held that the district court properly dismissed QT's COGSA claims where QT failed to establish genuine issues of material fact where none of the defendants were "carriers" and thus could not be liable for damages under the statute. The court also held that the district court properly dismissed QT's bailment claims where QT failed to show that a certain defendant had exclusive possession of the cargo.

Appellant appealed an order of summary judgment in favor of the United States Bureau of Customs and Border Protection ("CBP") in his eight Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. 552, requests for 19 C.F.R. 133.21(c) Notices of Seizures of Infringing Merchandise ("Notices") from certain United States ports. Appellant raised several issues of error on appeal. The court held that the district court's findings that the Notices contained plainly commercial information, which disclosed intimate aspects of an importers business such as supply chains and fluctuations of demand for merchandise, was well supported. The court also held that the district court was not clearly erroneous in its finding that the information at issue was confidential and privileged where the trade secret exemption of FOIA ("Exemption 4") was applicable. The court further held that when an agency freely disclosed to a third party confidential information covered by a FOIA exemption without limiting the third-party's ability to further disseminate the information then the agency waived the ability to claim an exemption to a FOIA request for the disclosed information. Therefore, the district court's ruling was affirmed in regards to FOIA Exemption 4 but the district court's conclusion as to the fees charged to appellant was reversed where CBP must follow the FOIA fee provisions under 19 C.F.R. 103.

Dell manufactures and sells secondary batteries for laptop computers, which may be packaged with new computers, at the option of the customer. The batteries at issue were admitted separately from computers into Dellâs Foreign Trade Sub-Zone (âFTZâ) in Nashville with ânon-privileged foreign status,â meaning that they had not been cleared by Customs and would be appraised for tariff purposes at the time of their formal entry into the United States. Dell proposed to classify secondary batteries that were packaged with computers as duty-free âportable digital automatic data processing [âADPâ] machines,â the ordinary classification for laptop computers. Customs classified the batteries as "other storage batteries," not âgoods put up in sets for retail saleâ with the computers. The Court of International Trade upheld the designation. The Federal Circuit affirmed, noting that the computer and battery may be packaged and shipped to the customer together, but are not packaged as a single unit for retail sale. There is nothing anomalous about classification of an article depending on the manner in which it is combined or associated with other related articles that are imported with it.

In 2003 the Department of Commerce, responding to a petition by the domestic wheat industry, found that Canadian wheat had been sold in the United States at less than fair value and issued an anti-dumping order. A North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) binational panel remanded and Commerce found that the dumping had not materially injured the domestic industry. The NAFTA panel affirmed. Revocation of the anti-dumping order stated ârevocation does not affect the liquidation of entries made prior to January 2, 2006â and instructed Customs to liquidate earlier entries at the rate in effect at the time of entry. The Trade Court granted an injunction against liquidation of those duties and held that the Canadian Wheat Board was entitled to return of deposited unliquidated anti-dumping duties. The Federal Circuit affirmed, first holding that the Trade Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1581. The case did not involve unauthorized review of a NAFTA panel decision, but Commerce's implementation of the decision. Characterizing the decision to not return anti-dumping duties as "bizarre and unfair," the court stated that retaining the duties cannot be valid if the underlying order is invalid. Return of the duties does not constitute a retroactive remedy.

Plaintiffs sued defendants alleging that defendants submitted fraudulent petitions to the U.S. International Trade Commission ("ITC") and thereby induced the ITC to impose unwarranted duties on plaintiffs' products. At issue was whether defendants' petitions to the ITC established personal jurisdiction in the District of Columbia when none of the defendants was located or incorporated in the District of Columbia. Also at issue was whether jurisdiction was proper where defendants had conspired with a trade association that was located within the District of Columbia. The court held that plaintiffs' allegation that defendants conspired with a trade association was insufficient to support personal jurisdiction. The court then certified the following question to the D.C. Court of Appeals, "Under District of Columbia law, does a petition sent to a federal government agency in the District provide a basis for establishing personal jurisdiction over the petitioner when the plaintiff has alleged that the petition fraudulently induced unwarranted government action against the plaintiff?"