The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Net wraps used to bind agricultural products in round bales can't be classified as agricultural machinery, and are more akin to thread in a sewing machine or paper in a printer, DOJ said in a brief filed May 10 at the Court of International Trade. The motion for summary judgment asks CIT Judge Mark Barnett to rule against a motion for summary judgement filed by importer RKW Klerks (see 2203150049), and find the net wraps are knit fabrics rather than agricultural machine parts (RKW Klerks Inc. v. United States, CIT #20-00001).
The Commerce Department's remand results finding that a South Korean authority did not provide electricity below cost in a countervailing duty investigation does not properly apply an "adequate remuneration" standard, plaintiff-appellant Nucor Corp. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Filing its opening brief in its appeal, Nucor said that while Commerce does identify an adequate remuneration standard that could address the Federal Circuit's prior holding on the agency's sole reliance on a preferential rates analysis, the standard is not properly applied (POSCO v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1525).
The Commerce Department properly relied on a questionnaire instead of conducting on-site verification due to COVID-19-related travel restrictions, the U.S. argued in a May 10 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The plaintiffs, led by Ellwood City Forge, didn't take issue with the verification methodology until litigation and the methodology is in line with Commerce's actions in prior crises, so the questionnaire should be sustained, Commerce argued (Ellwood City Forge Company v. U.S., CIT #21-00007).
If the International Trade Commission opens a Tariff Act Section 337 investigation into Broadband iTV (BBiTV) allegations against Altice, Comcast and Charter, the cable companies want the ITC to use its 100-day early disposition program to determine if BBiTV satisfies the domestic industry requirement of its patent infringement complaint, they said in a filing posted Monday in docket 337-3616. BBiTV alleges set-tops from the three companies infringe four patents on VOD and electronic program guide technologies, and seeks cease and desist and limited exclusion orders against the infringing devices (see 2204280027). An ITC Section 337 complainant must show that a domestic industry exists for its asserted patents or is in the process of being established. “BBiTV does not contribute to any domestic industry in the asserted patents,” but instead relies entirely on investments made by third-party licensee Dish Network, and only between Dec. 10 and Dec. 31, “to support its allegations of a domestic industry,” said the cable companies. ITC case law shows “abbreviated” license periods call into doubt the “sufficiency” of domestic law allegations, they said. BBiTV is “a non-practicing entity that does not make any products on its own,” but rather sues other companies “to extract settlement licenses,” they said. Dish “only recently executed its license to the asserted patents to resolve litigation brought against it by BBiTV,” they said. BBiTV didn’t comment Tuesday, nor did Dish, which isn't a party to BBiTV’s complaint.
If the International Trade Commission opens a Tariff Act Section 337 investigation into Broadband iTV (BBiTV) allegations against Altice, Comcast and Charter, the cable companies want the ITC to use its 100-day early disposition program to determine if BBiTV satisfies the domestic industry requirement of its patent infringement complaint, they said in a filing posted Monday in docket 337-3616. BBiTV alleges set-tops from the three companies infringe four patents on VOD and electronic program guide technologies, and seeks cease and desist and limited exclusion orders against the infringing devices (see 2204280027). An ITC Section 337 complainant must show that a domestic industry exists for its asserted patents or is in the process of being established. “BBiTV does not contribute to any domestic industry in the asserted patents,” but instead relies entirely on investments made by third-party licensee Dish Network, and only between Dec. 10 and Dec. 31, “to support its allegations of a domestic industry,” said the cable companies. ITC case law shows “abbreviated” license periods call into doubt the “sufficiency” of domestic law allegations, they said. BBiTV is “a non-practicing entity that does not make any products on its own,” but rather sues other companies “to extract settlement licenses,” they said. Dish “only recently executed its license to the asserted patents to resolve litigation brought against it by BBiTV,” they said. BBiTV didn’t comment Tuesday, nor did Dish, which isn't a party to BBiTV’s complaint.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department illegally used one antidumping mandatory respondent's third-country sales to calculate another mandatory respondent's constructed value profit, selling expenses and constructed export price profit, mandatory respondent Hyundai Steel Co. and non-selected respondent AJU Besteel Co. argued in a pair of complaints at the Court of International Trade (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00138) (AJU Besteel Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00139).
The Commerce Department properly found that the Chinese government and countervailing duty respondent Jangho Group failed to respond to the best of their ability on whether aluminum extrusions producers are "authorities," the Court of International Trade ruled in a May 10 opinion. As a result, Commerce properly applied adverse facts available, Judge Leo Gordon ruled. Issuing his second opinion in the case after Jangho vied for a rehearing over its unaddressed "alternative arguments," Gordon also said that Commerce properly found that the provision of glass and aluminum extrusions below cost are specific subsidies.
The lawyer for a group of three U.S. chloropicrin producers' medical issues were not unexpected and thus do not classify as an "extraordinary circumstance," warranting an untimely filing in an antidumping duty sunset review that led to the revocation of the order, the U.S. argued in a May 9 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The lawyer had been experiencing the medical issues for months and had actually carried out other tasks in the sunset review on the day prior to and on the day the submission was due, showing that the Commerce Department's rejection of the filing in question was justified, DOJ argued (Trinity Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1329).