A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit voted 2-1 Tuesday to overturn the International Trade Commission's ruling that it possesses jurisdiction to block the transmission of digital information. Experts and those close to the case told us it may eventually be heard en banc. The case, closely monitored by copyright and anti-piracy advocates (see 1508120070), concerns the appeal by corrective orthodontic device manufacturer ClearCorrect of a 2014 ITC decision prohibiting the company's affiliate in Pakistan from sending digital molds of patients' teeth to ClearCorrect headquarters in Houston, due to the alleged infringement on patents held by industry competitor Align Technology.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit voted 2-1 Tuesday to overturn the International Trade Commission's ruling that it possesses jurisdiction to block the transmission of digital information. Experts and those close to the case told us it may eventually be heard en banc. The case, closely monitored by copyright and anti-piracy advocates (see 1508120070), concerns the appeal by corrective orthodontic device manufacturer ClearCorrect of a 2014 ITC decision prohibiting the company's affiliate in Pakistan from sending digital molds of patients' teeth to ClearCorrect headquarters in Houston, due to the alleged infringement on patents held by industry competitor Align Technology.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Nov. 2-8:
A second protest cannot be filed on an entry after denial of the first, even if filed by a different person, said the Court of International Trade on Nov. 9 as it dismissed an importer’s lawsuit challenging the valuation of two entries of pencils (here). Design International Group had already had two protests on the two entries denied on when it filed a third protest on the two entries, still within the 180 day time limit for protest filing. Though 19 USC 1514(c)(1)(D) generally allows only one protest for each entry of merchandise, Design International cited an exception for “separate protests filed by different authorized persons,” noting the first two protests were filed by its customs broker, while the third was filed by its attorney. CIT, citing previous case law, ruled that the exception for different authorized persons does is not applicable when the first protest has already been denied. According to the court, allowing additional protests when a protest has already been denied would allow an unending series of protests, each protesting the previous denial.
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Nov. 2-6 in case they were missed.
An Oklahoma jury awarded Cox Communications subscribers $6.31 million in their lawsuit alleging the cable company illegally made rental of a Cox set-top box a prerequisite for accessing all content and features in its Premium Cable subscriptions. The Friday verdict followed a two-week trial in U.S. District Court in Oklahoma City. Similar Premium Cable class-action subscriber suits filed in 2009 were consolidated into one case. In their verdict, the jurors said Cox had sold Premium Cable in the Oklahoma City market only on condition that subscribers also lease a set-top box, that Cox had sufficient market power there to let it restrain trade in the set-top box market, that the tying "foreclosed a substantial volume of commerce" in Oklahoma City to other set-top box sellers or potential sellers, and that the plaintiffs were injured because of the tying arrangement. Cox filed a motion asking for the jury verdict to be overturned because it "did not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for plaintiff." In a statement, Cox said it was "disappointed in the verdict, but gratified that the jury recognized most of the damages plaintiffs were seeking were unwarranted" and that its motion stood on "solid grounds."
An Oklahoma jury awarded Cox Communications subscribers $6.31 million in their lawsuit alleging the cable company illegally made rental of a Cox set-top box a prerequisite for accessing all content and features in its Premium Cable subscriptions. The Friday verdict followed a two-week trial in U.S. District Court in Oklahoma City. Similar Premium Cable class-action subscriber suits filed in 2009 were consolidated into one case. In their verdict, the jurors said Cox had sold Premium Cable in the Oklahoma City market only on condition that subscribers also lease a set-top box, that Cox had sufficient market power there to let it restrain trade in the set-top box market, that the tying "foreclosed a substantial volume of commerce" in Oklahoma City to other set-top box sellers or potential sellers, and that the plaintiffs were injured because of the tying arrangement. Cox filed a motion asking for the jury verdict to be overturned because it "did not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for plaintiff." In a statement, Cox said it was "disappointed in the verdict, but gratified that the jury recognized most of the damages plaintiffs were seeking were unwarranted" and that its motion stood on "solid grounds."
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Oct. 26 - Nov. 1:
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Oct. 26-30 in case they were missed.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Oct. 19-25: