The U.S. International Trade Commission changed its rules on Section 337 patent investigations, adopting a July proposal with minor changes. The final rule amends the ITC’s regulations to change filing deadlines and requirements, and “address concerns that have arisen in Commission practice,” the commission said. The final rule takes effect May 20. There are new requirements for complainants. The complainant must specify whether it alleges injury to a domestic industry that exists or a domestic industry that is in the process of being established; specify whether it’s requesting a general exclusion order, a limited exclusion order, and/or cease and desist order; and identify the accused products with a clear statement in plain English. In the proposed rule, the ITC said it would publish the plain English description in the Federal Register institution notice, but it withdrew that requirement in response to comments. Substantial changes to complaints will now restart the institution period. If a complainant significantly amends a complaint prior to institution -- adding, for example, additional respondents or accused products -- the amendment will restart the normal 30-day process for determining whether to institute an investigation. That responds to substantial amendments in past cases which complicated the agency’s ability to get public interest comments, placed additional demands on the commission and effectively reduced the 30-day period that proposed respondents normally have to review the allegations against them, the ITC said. Other changes included letting the commission or an administrative law judge consolidate some investigations. The agency limited depositions and interrogatories. Complainants will be limited to 20 fact depositions as a group, or five per respondent, whichever is more. Respondents as a group will be limited to 20 fact depositions total. If the ITC investigative attorney is a party, he or she is limited to 10 fact depositions. Each party can serve any other party with a maximum of 175 interrogatories. The ITC required itself or its ALJ to issue public versions within 30 days. Some deadlines were also shortened. The commission will have 45 days to determine whether to review the enforcement initial determination, compared with 90 days now.
The U.S. International Trade Commission changed its rules on Section 337 patent investigations, adopting a July proposal with minor changes. The final rule amends the ITC’s regulations to change filing deadlines and requirements, and “address concerns that have arisen in Commission practice,” the commission said. The final rule takes effect May 20. There are new requirements for complainants. The complainant must specify whether it alleges injury to a domestic industry that exists or a domestic industry that is in the process of being established; specify whether it’s requesting a general exclusion order, a limited exclusion order, and/or cease and desist order; and identify the accused products with a clear statement in plain English. In the proposed rule, the ITC said it would publish the plain English description in the Federal Register institution notice, but it withdrew that requirement in response to comments. Substantial changes to complaints will now restart the institution period. If a complainant significantly amends a complaint prior to institution -- adding, for example, additional respondents or accused products -- the amendment will restart the normal 30-day process for determining whether to institute an investigation. That responds to substantial amendments in past cases which complicated the agency’s ability to get public interest comments, placed additional demands on the commission and effectively reduced the 30-day period that proposed respondents normally have to review the allegations against them, the ITC said. Other changes included letting the commission or an administrative law judge consolidate some investigations. The agency limited depositions and interrogatories. Complainants will be limited to 20 fact depositions as a group, or five per respondent, whichever is more. Respondents as a group will be limited to 20 fact depositions total. If the ITC investigative attorney is a party, he or she is limited to 10 fact depositions. Each party can serve any other party with a maximum of 175 interrogatories. The ITC required itself or its ALJ to issue public versions within 30 days. Some deadlines were also shortened. The commission will have 45 days to determine whether to review the enforcement initial determination, compared with 90 days now.
The International Trade Commission finalized changes to its Rules of Practice and Procedure concerning general application, adjudication, and enforcement in Section 337 patent investigations, adopting a July 2012 proposed rule with minor changes (see 12071129). The final rule amends the ITC’s regulations at 19 CFR 201 and 210 in order to change filing deadlines and requirements, and “address concerns that have arisen in Commission practice,” the commission said. The final rule is effective May 20.
A rogue Internet trader who sold fake versions of branded CE products faces up to 10 years in prison when he’s sentenced Thursday in Portsmouth Crown Court in the U.K. Michael Reeder, 35, was convicted in March of 13 counterfeit-related charges under the U.K.’s Trade Marks Act, capping an 18-month probe by Monster and the Trading Standards Service (TSS) into the sale of thousands of counterfeit goods, including those sold under the Monster, Sennheiser, Speck and Sony brands. In the case of Monster, Reeder was charged with two counts of possession of unauthorized goods bearing a registered trademark. The charges were filed against Reeder in September. Reeder, who operated the Odds and Pods website, denied allegations, but was convicted. The investigation began after customers complained to Monster and Sennheiser about headphones bought from Odds and Pods, some of which had minor packaging discrepancies as well as buzzing and poor sound quality, the TSS said. Monster began an initial probe along with the investigation firm 3Ci Europe after receiving complaints in 2010. The initial findings led to a February 2011 raid that netted more than 2,000 items. Reeder, who was the subject of a previous court order in 2009, told TSS in August 2011 that he stopped trading. But a seizure of goods at East Midlands Airport in the U.K. provided evidence that Reeder was still operating a site, but under the Nice Cans banner, Monster said. A separate raid in September 2011 produced another 1,500 items that Reeder had imported through a contact in China, Monster said.
A rogue Internet trader who sold fake versions of branded consumer electronics products faces up to 10 years in jail when he’s sentenced Thursday in Portsmouth Crown Court in the U.K. Michael Reeder, 35, was convicted in March of 13 counterfeit-related charges under the U.K.’s Trade Marks Act, capping an 18-month probe by Monster and the Trading Standards Service (TSS) into the sale of thousands of counterfeit goods, including those sold under the Monster, Sennheiser, Speck and Sony brands. In the case of Monster, Reeder was charged with two counts of possession of unauthorized goods bearing a registered trademark. The charges were filed against Reeder in September. Reeder, who operated the Odds and Pods website, denied allegations, but was convicted. The investigation began after customers complained to Monster and Sennheiser about headphones bought from Odds and Pods, some of which had minor packaging discrepancies as well as buzzing and poor sound quality, the TSS said. Monster began an initial probe along with the investigation firm 3Ci Europe after receiving complaints in 2010. The initial findings led to a February 2011 raid that netted more than 2,000 items. Reeder, who was the subject of a previous court order in 2009, told TSS in August 2011 that he stopped trading. But a seizure of goods at East Midlands Airport in the U.K. provided evidence that Reeder was still operating a site, but under the Nice Cans banner, Monster said. A separate raid in September 2011 produced another 1,500 items that Reeder had imported through a contact in China, Monster said.
CBP's intent to establish a new system of records (SORS) for data filed as part of the Customs—Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) program is causing alarm among some trade groups due to the potential release of proprietary information. Several recent filings with the agency responding to the notice establishing the SORS and a related proposed rulemaking (see 13031225) indicate concern with the idea and the speed at which the regulatory process is moving forward.
The Court of International Trade dismissed an action challenging the U.S. Customs Service’s HTS classification of certain models of Teva sports sandals as footwear with open toes or open heels, rather than as sports footwear. CIT found the 2008 decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a test case involving similar footwear to be controlling (see 08070735). The case had been filed by Deckers Corporation over a decade ago.
RANCHO MIRAGE, Calif. -- The CBP Centers for Excellence and Expertise will eventually open up participation to entire industries, regardless of trusted trader status, said Anne Maricich, director of the Electronics CEE in Long Beach, Calif. "All of the Centers will be expanding and we have a five year charge to take the entire industry," she said. As a result, the agency is working at how to continue to differentiate the trusted trader member benefits from the rest of the industry that will be covered by the CEEs, she said. Maricich also outlined a number of operational details on the CEEs, including how broker penalties and fines will be administered going forward. Maricich discussed the issue while on a panel at the National Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association of America conference April 10.
The American Association of Exporters and Importers (AAEI) joined the chorus of customs groups asking for removal of AD/CVD section from the still-under-discussion House customs reauthorization bill, saying the section should be removed “so it does not slow down passage of this important legislation.”
The FTC and Department of Justice should encourage courts to “deter some of the [patent assertion entities'] worst practices,” Verizon Communications and USTelecom said in joint comments posted online Monday. The FTC and Justice had collected public comments through Friday in connection with a workshop they held in December to get industry input on the effects of PAEs and how the agencies could minimize the harms PAEs could cause.