The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 17-23:
The Commerce Department violated the law when it found antidumping duty respondent Papierfabrik August Kohler's Blue4est developer-free paper to be within the scope of the AD duty order on thermal paper from Germany, the respondent told the Court of International Trade in a Jan. 21 complaint. Commerce, in its preliminary determination, found the Blue4est paper to be outside of the scope of the order but changed its decision in the final results. This decision wasn't based on a change in evidence but rather a "conclusory decision to ignore the limited scope of the term 'thermal paper' as defined in the petition," the respondent said (Koehler Paper SE v. U.S., CIT #21-00633).
Ericsson seeks a Section 337 import ban on Apple phones and tablets that allegedly infringe its patents for wireless technologies, as well as smartwatches, smart speakers and digital media players. In three separate complaints filed with the International Trade Commission Jan. 18, Ericsson says several models of iPhones, iPads, Apple Watches, HomePads and Apple TVs infringe on 12 of its patents. Ericsson seeks a permanent limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order against Apple. Comments in all three cases are due to the ITC by Feb. 1.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 10-16:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Two importers asked the Court of International Trade to sustain remand results from the Commerce Department that found certain door thresholds qualify for the "finished merchandise" exclusion from antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. In a pair of briefs filed in two separate cases, Columbia Aluminum Products and Worldwide Door Components said Commerce correctly reversed course after CIT's remand (Worldwide Door Components v. United States, CIT #19-00012) (Columbia Aluminum Products v. United States, CIT # 19-00013).