The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 15-21:
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for June15-19 in case they were missed.
A high-profile legal effort to declare Section 232 tariffs unconstitutional has come to an unsuccessful end, after the Supreme Court on June 22 issued an order declining to hear the case. The high court’s denial of certiorari leaves the American Institute for International Steel, the trade group that filed the lawsuit, with no remaining options to continue its two-year fight against the tariffs, which it had argued were an unconstitutional delegation of congressional tariff powers to the president.
Generally, an entry is liquidated after 314 days, but Geodis customs brokers told an audience of fashion industry professionals that there have been cases in which liquidation came early, and there was not enough time left to do a protest in order to get a refund after an exclusion was granted. The brokers spoke during a webinar hosted by the U.S. Fashion Industry Association.
China’s World Trade Organization challenge to the European Union’s non-market economy treatment of its goods in antidumping duty cases has now fallen further into inactivity. The WTO on June 15 issued a notification that it is disbanding a panel requested by China in 2017 to decide the dispute, one year after China asked the WTO to suspend the panel. Under WTO rules, a panel may only be suspended for a year before its authority lapses. A similar WTO challenge filed by China against its continued non-market economy treatment by the U.S. never made it past initial consultations (see 1612120019 and 1710300043). China had argued in both cases that a provision of its agreement to join the WTO required that all countries treat it as a market economy beginning Dec. 11, 2016.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 8-14:
Sonos CEO Patrick Spence slammed Google's alleging his company is stealing “substantial volumes” of Google’s patented technology in search, audio processing and streaming (see 2006110024). Google’s complaint (in Pacer) against Sonos Thursday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco came five months after Sonos alleged Google stole the technologies in five of its multiroom audio patents. Instead of addressing the “merits” of the Sonos allegations against Google, “and paying us what we're owed, Google has chosen to use their size and breadth to try and find areas in which they can retaliate,” said Spence in a statement Thursday: “We look forward to winning our original case, and this newly filed case as well.” Google “seems to have no shame in copying the innovations of smaller American companies in their attempts to extend their search and advertising monopolies into new categories,” said Spence. “We're mostly sad to see a once innovative company with the mission of ‘Do No Evil’ avoid addressing the fact they've infringed on our inventions, and have turned to strong arm tactics the robber barons of old would have applauded." A Google spokesperson declined comment Friday. We’re told Google for now won’t take its allegations to the International Trade Commission, as Sonos did against Google in January. The ITC’s Tariff Act Section 337 investigation into the Sonos complaint is in the discovery phase, where it reached an impasse over the remote review of source code evidence because in-person meetings aren't possible due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Sonos CEO Patrick Spence slammed Google's alleging his company is stealing “substantial volumes” of Google’s patented technology in search, audio processing and streaming (see 2006110024). Google’s complaint (in Pacer) against Sonos Thursday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco came five months after Sonos alleged Google stole the technologies in five of its multiroom audio patents. Instead of addressing the “merits” of the Sonos allegations against Google, “and paying us what we're owed, Google has chosen to use their size and breadth to try and find areas in which they can retaliate,” said Spence in a statement Thursday: “We look forward to winning our original case, and this newly filed case as well.” Google “seems to have no shame in copying the innovations of smaller American companies in their attempts to extend their search and advertising monopolies into new categories,” said Spence. “We're mostly sad to see a once innovative company with the mission of ‘Do No Evil’ avoid addressing the fact they've infringed on our inventions, and have turned to strong arm tactics the robber barons of old would have applauded." A Google spokesperson declined comment Friday. We’re told Google for now won’t take its allegations to the International Trade Commission, as Sonos did against Google in January. The ITC’s Tariff Act Section 337 investigation into the Sonos complaint is in the discovery phase, where it reached an impasse over the remote review of source code evidence because in-person meetings aren't possible due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Sonos CEO Patrick Spence pulled few punches reacting to Google allegations his company is stealing “substantial volumes” of Google’s patented technology in search, audio processing and streaming (see 2006110024). Google’s complaint (in Pacer) against Sonos Thursday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco came five months after Sonos alleged Google stole the technologies in five of its multiroom audio patents.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 1-7: