The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug. 1-7:
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Aug. 1-5 in case they were missed.
A sprinkling of U.S.-based companies such as Amazon, Microsoft and Workday announced they've signed up for EU-U.S. Privacy Shield, which requires them to adhere to more-stringent privacy protections when transferring personal data of Europeans. And the Department of Commerce, which opened up the process Aug. 1 (see 1608010017), said companies have showed enthusiasm in using the new framework.
A sprinkling of U.S.-based companies such as Amazon, Microsoft and Workday announced they've signed up for EU-U.S. Privacy Shield, which requires them to adhere to more-stringent privacy protections when transferring personal data of Europeans. And the Department of Commerce, which opened up the process Aug. 1 (see 1608010017), said companies have showed enthusiasm in using the new framework.
The offices of Reps. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., and Ryan Zinke, R-Mont., plan to urge U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman to hold the line in ensuring Canadian softwood lumber imports are capped at a bilaterally agreed-upon U.S. market share, according to a letter the lawmakers plan to send to Froman next month and obtained by International Trade Today. DeFazio and Zinke said ongoing Softwood Lumber Agreement (SLA) negotiations should secure fair competition for U.S. industry, even if negotiations run until October, when a one-year reprieve on trade cases involving Canadian softwood imports expires. “Current Canadian trade practices harm U.S. producers,” the lawmakers said in a notice seeking additional supporters. “Market downcycles accelerate and deepen for U.S. producers while Canadian producers are protected from normal market fluctuations. The resulting low lumber prices force U.S. mill closures -- in effect, Canada exports its mill closures to the United States. Until Canada changes its timber system to operate on open and competitive terms, border measures to offset the Canadian market distortions remain critical to U.S. manufacturers, landholders, and communities.” The government of Canada pays stumpage to domestic companies for exported lumber, which the U.S. executive branch considers to be subsidies.
Protests may be filed to claim Generalized System of Preferences benefits, the Court of International Trade said in an Aug. 4 decision (here) that appears to contradict current CBP policy. Though it dismissed an importer’s challenge on a technicality, the court found flaws with the basis of CBP’s 2014 directive that ports no longer accept protests used to claim GSP duty-free treatment post-liquidation (see 14081320). CIT “essentially ruled that the government was wrong in taking the position that GSP claims cannot be raised in a protest,” said John Peterson of Neville Peterson, who represented the importer, Zojirushi America.
ACE filers continue to face downtime and slowdown issues worse than those encountered in the legacy Automated Commercial System, and several functionalities essential to the trade community are still unavailable, including some that were available in the legacy system before it was mostly shut down July 23, the National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America said in a position paper (here). “Much remains to be done” before the implementation of ACE can be declared a success, with performance of some aspects of the new electronic filing regime still lagging behind that of the ACS, it said.
George Mason University Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property Senior Scholar Adam Mossoff and 27 other U.S. academics jointly urged the leaders of the House and Senate Judiciary committees Monday to “exercise caution” in considering the patent litigation-focused Venue Equity and Non-Uniformity Elimination (Venue) Act. (S-2733), filed in March (see 1603180057). The legislation would revamp rules for placement of patent infringement lawsuits in federal courts, requiring at least one of the parties involved in the suit be connected directly to the jurisdiction in which the lawsuit is filed. House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., has said he isn’t opposed to narrowly focused patent bills like S-2733 but prefers to focus on his more comprehensive Innovation Act (HR-9), which also addresses patent litigation venue issues (see 1603250056). A “cautious stance” on bills like S-2733 is needed until the effects of the establishment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and other changes to the patent system enacted via the 2011 America Invents Act “are better understood,” the academics said in their letter to Goodlatte and other House and Senate Judiciary leaders. Although calls for revamping venue rules sound plausible because of the high concentration of patent infringement suits in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the push for bills like S-2733 primarily is coming from tech firms and online retailers “that would rather litigate in a small number of more defendant-friendly jurisdictions,” the academics said. They said other arguments in favor of S-2733 “do not stand up to scrutiny,” including claims the bill would spread lawsuits to other courts around the country. Some S-2733 supporters “have found that restricting venue in a manner similar to the VENUE Act would likely result in concentrating more than 50% of patent lawsuits in just two districts: the District of Delaware (where most publicly traded corporations are incorporated) and the Northern District of California (where many patent defendants are headquartered),” the academics said. S-2733 would “raise costs for many patent owners by requiring them to litigate the same patent against multiple defendants in multiple jurisdictions, increasing patent litigation overall,” the academics said: The bill also “encourages the manipulation of well-settled venue rules across all areas of law by the self-serving efforts of large corporate defendants that seek to insulate themselves from the consequences of violating the law. By enacting the Venue Act, Congress would send a strong signal to corporate defendants that they can tilt the substantive playing field by simply shifting cases to defendant-friendly jurisdictions.”
George Mason University Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property Senior Scholar Adam Mossoff and 27 other U.S. academics jointly urged the leaders of the House and Senate Judiciary committees Monday to “exercise caution” in considering the patent litigation-focused Venue Equity and Non-Uniformity Elimination (Venue) Act. (S-2733), filed in March (see 1603180057). The legislation would revamp rules for placement of patent infringement lawsuits in federal courts, requiring at least one of the parties involved in the suit be connected directly to the jurisdiction in which the lawsuit is filed. House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., has said he isn’t opposed to narrowly focused patent bills like S-2733 but prefers to focus on his more comprehensive Innovation Act (HR-9), which also addresses patent litigation venue issues (see 1603250056). A “cautious stance” on bills like S-2733 is needed until the effects of the establishment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and other changes to the patent system enacted via the 2011 America Invents Act “are better understood,” the academics said in their letter to Goodlatte and other House and Senate Judiciary leaders. Although calls for revamping venue rules sound plausible because of the high concentration of patent infringement suits in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the push for bills like S-2733 primarily is coming from tech firms and online retailers “that would rather litigate in a small number of more defendant-friendly jurisdictions,” the academics said. They said other arguments in favor of S-2733 “do not stand up to scrutiny,” including claims the bill would spread lawsuits to other courts around the country. Some S-2733 supporters “have found that restricting venue in a manner similar to the VENUE Act would likely result in concentrating more than 50% of patent lawsuits in just two districts: the District of Delaware (where most publicly traded corporations are incorporated) and the Northern District of California (where many patent defendants are headquartered),” the academics said. S-2733 would “raise costs for many patent owners by requiring them to litigate the same patent against multiple defendants in multiple jurisdictions, increasing patent litigation overall,” the academics said: The bill also “encourages the manipulation of well-settled venue rules across all areas of law by the self-serving efforts of large corporate defendants that seek to insulate themselves from the consequences of violating the law. By enacting the Venue Act, Congress would send a strong signal to corporate defendants that they can tilt the substantive playing field by simply shifting cases to defendant-friendly jurisdictions.”
George Mason University Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property Senior Scholar Adam Mossoff and 27 other U.S. academics jointly urged the leaders of the House and Senate Judiciary committees Monday to “exercise caution” in considering the patent litigation-focused Venue Equity and Non-Uniformity Elimination (Venue) Act. (S-2733), filed in March (see 1603180057). The legislation would revamp rules for placement of patent infringement lawsuits in federal courts, requiring at least one of the parties involved in the suit be connected directly to the jurisdiction in which the lawsuit is filed. House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., has said he isn’t opposed to narrowly focused patent bills like S-2733 but prefers to focus on his more comprehensive Innovation Act (HR-9), which also addresses patent litigation venue issues (see 1603250056). A “cautious stance” on bills like S-2733 is needed until the effects of the establishment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and other changes to the patent system enacted via the 2011 America Invents Act “are better understood,” the academics said in their letter to Goodlatte and other House and Senate Judiciary leaders. Although calls for revamping venue rules sound plausible because of the high concentration of patent infringement suits in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the push for bills like S-2733 primarily is coming from tech firms and online retailers “that would rather litigate in a small number of more defendant-friendly jurisdictions,” the academics said. They said other arguments in favor of S-2733 “do not stand up to scrutiny,” including claims the bill would spread lawsuits to other courts around the country. Some S-2733 supporters “have found that restricting venue in a manner similar to the VENUE Act would likely result in concentrating more than 50% of patent lawsuits in just two districts: the District of Delaware (where most publicly traded corporations are incorporated) and the Northern District of California (where many patent defendants are headquartered),” the academics said. S-2733 would “raise costs for many patent owners by requiring them to litigate the same patent against multiple defendants in multiple jurisdictions, increasing patent litigation overall,” the academics said: The bill also “encourages the manipulation of well-settled venue rules across all areas of law by the self-serving efforts of large corporate defendants that seek to insulate themselves from the consequences of violating the law. By enacting the Venue Act, Congress would send a strong signal to corporate defendants that they can tilt the substantive playing field by simply shifting cases to defendant-friendly jurisdictions.”