The Turkish government should pressure the World Trade Organization to act on U.S. duties on Turkish oil country tubular good exports to the U.S., the Turkish Steel Exporter’s Association (CIB) said in recent days. The CIB statement urged the Turkish economic ministry to “appeal a previous case” at the WTO, although the specific case referred to is unclear. The WTO is likely to provide a more objective analysis of the duties, said CIB after railing against the U.S. Commerce Department for imposing the duties. Commerce gave the go-ahead on antidumping and countervailing duties on Turkish OCTG in 2014 (see 14090917). U.S. manufacturers also filed a petition in late July to Commerce and the International Trade Commission to urge AD/CVD on heavy-walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Turkey, among other countries (see 1507270019). “The Turkish Steel Exporters’ Association vehemently denies any claims that Turkish steel imports benefit from unfair pricing models,” said CIB President Namik Ekinci in the statement (here). “The regretful 2014 OCTG ruling by the Department of Commerce has given way for additional unfair filings by the US industry, as seen with this recent petition and a number of petitions expected to roll in.”
The International Trade Commission and ClearCorrect, maker of corrective orthodontic devices, mainly debated the scope of ITC jurisdiction and whether it's able to block importation of digital information during oral argument Aug. 11 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case, heard by Judges Kathleen O'Malley, Sharon Prost and Pauline Newman, was brought to the court by ClearCorrect. It claims the ITC overreached its abilities to regulate such imports when it released an order prohibiting the firm's Pakistan branch from sending alleged patent-infringing digital data to the company's headquarters in Houston. The ITC ruled ClearCorrect infringed on patents encompassing the plastic orthodontic molds used as an alternative to braces held by industry leader Align Technology (see 14040708). Many tech companies backed ClearCorrect.
The International Trade Commission and ClearCorrect, maker of corrective orthodontic devices, during oral argument Tuesday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit mainly debated the scope of ITC jurisdiction and whether it's able to block importation of digital information. The case, heard by Judges Kathleen O'Malley, Sharon Prost and Pauline Newman, was brought to the court by ClearCorrect. It claims the ITC overreached its abilities to regulate goods when it released an order prohibiting the firm's Pakistan branch from sending alleged patent-infringing digital data to the company's headquarters in Houston. The ITC ruled ClearCorrect infringed on patents encompassing the plastic orthodontic molds used as an alternative to braces held by industry leader Align Technology. Many tech companies backed ClearCorrect.
The International Trade Commission and ClearCorrect, maker of corrective orthodontic devices, during oral argument Tuesday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit mainly debated the scope of ITC jurisdiction and whether it's able to block importation of digital information. The case, heard by Judges Kathleen O'Malley, Sharon Prost and Pauline Newman, was brought to the court by ClearCorrect. It claims the ITC overreached its abilities to regulate goods when it released an order prohibiting the firm's Pakistan branch from sending alleged patent-infringing digital data to the company's headquarters in Houston. The ITC ruled ClearCorrect infringed on patents encompassing the plastic orthodontic molds used as an alternative to braces held by industry leader Align Technology. Many tech companies backed ClearCorrect.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug 3-9:
Some 1,997 public comments were filed with the FTC after its June workshop on competition, consumer protection and economic issues raised by the so-called "sharing economy." Most comments encouraged the FTC to regulate the sharing economy lightly and to end any practices that favor established companies. CEA, the Internet Association and other tech firms backed the sharing economy, which is often said to involve companies including Uber that have run into regulatory issues as they expand.
Some 1,997 public comments were filed with the FTC after its June workshop on competition, consumer protection and economic issues raised by the so-called "sharing economy." Most comments encouraged the FTC to regulate the sharing economy lightly and to end any practices that favor established companies. CEA, the Internet Association and other tech firms backed the sharing economy, which is often said to involve companies including Uber that have run into regulatory issues as they expand.
Some 1,997 public comments were filed with the FTC after its June workshop on competition, consumer protection and economic issues raised by the so-called "sharing economy." Most comments encouraged the FTC to regulate the sharing economy lightly and to end any practices that favor established companies. CEA, the Internet Association and other tech firms backed the sharing economy, which is often said to involve companies including Uber that have run into regulatory issues as they expand.
A federal court accepted the requests of parties to file amicus briefs supporting petitioners challenging the FCC net neutrality and broadband reclassification order. An order Tuesday of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in USTelecom v. FCC, No. 15-1063, granted the motions of: (A) Richard Bennett, (B) the Business Roundtable, National Association of Manufacturers and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, (C) Center for Boundless Innovation in Technology, (D) Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy, Georgetown University, (E) International Center for Law and Economics and Affiliated Scholars, (F) former FCC employee William Kirsch, (G) Mobile Future, (H) Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council, (I) Phoenix Center, (J) Telecommunications Industry Association and (K) Christopher Yoo, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, ex-FCC Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth and Washington Legal Foundation had filed notices of their intent to file amicus briefs; lawyers for the three said they didn't have to file motions because they received the consent of all the parties to the case. (For more on the arguments the parties plan to make in their briefs, see 1507130064, 1507140035, 1507150012, 1507210054 and 1507270045). The briefs of the amici and intervenors supporting petitioners are due Thursday. Tuesday's order also directed the court's clerk to file Kirsch's brief, which he submitted early to protect petitioner due process rights. Kirsch said the FCC arbitrarily and capriciously failed to address his comments in the net neutrality proceeding on international telecom. "The FCC is entitled to deference for a Title II Court-guided classification, but should be subject to a de novo review for a quasi-judicial standard in place of the rules based approach that should be required of a so-called expert agency," Kirsch's brief said. It addressed intervenors' standing to address harm from "gatekeepers" and petitioners' standing to address harm from the U.S. Trade Representative's decision ceding the country's telecom advantage in the World Trade Organization agreement on basic telecom to trading partners, including China.
A federal court accepted the requests of parties to file amicus briefs supporting petitioners challenging the FCC net neutrality and broadband reclassification order. An order Tuesday of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in USTelecom v. FCC, No. 15-1063, granted the motions of: (A) Richard Bennett, (B) the Business Roundtable, National Association of Manufacturers and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, (C) Center for Boundless Innovation in Technology, (D) Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy, Georgetown University, (E) International Center for Law and Economics and Affiliated Scholars, (F) former FCC employee William Kirsch, (G) Mobile Future, (H) Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council, (I) Phoenix Center, (J) Telecommunications Industry Association and (K) Christopher Yoo, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, ex-FCC Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth and Washington Legal Foundation had filed notices of their intent to file amicus briefs; lawyers for the three said they didn't have to file motions because they received the consent of all the parties to the case. (For more on the arguments the parties plan to make in their briefs, see 1507130064, 1507140035, 1507150012, 1507210054 and 1507270045). The briefs of the amici and intervenors supporting petitioners are due Thursday. Tuesday's order also directed the court's clerk to file Kirsch's brief, which he submitted early to protect petitioner due process rights. Kirsch said the FCC arbitrarily and capriciously failed to address his comments in the net neutrality proceeding on international telecom. "The FCC is entitled to deference for a Title II Court-guided classification, but should be subject to a de novo review for a quasi-judicial standard in place of the rules based approach that should be required of a so-called expert agency," Kirsch's brief said. It addressed intervenors' standing to address harm from "gatekeepers" and petitioners' standing to address harm from the U.S. Trade Representative's decision ceding the country's telecom advantage in the World Trade Organization agreement on basic telecom to trading partners, including China.