The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted an International Trade Commission motion for a 30-day extension for filing petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc (see 1512090014) in the ITC case against corrective orthodontic device manufacturer ClearCorrect. The Federal Circuit approved ITC's motion Thursday, effectively moving the filing deadline for rehearing petitions from Dec. 28 to Jan. 27. ITC's motion said ClearCorrect and intervenor Align Technology didn't oppose the extension request.
The International Trade Commission asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to grant a 30-day extension for the filing of petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc its case against corrective orthodontic device manufacturer ClearCorrect. The agency submitted a motion for a deadline extension Tuesday, citing its counsel's conflicts of time and preparation for other arguments as reasons for the request. The case concerns the appeal by ClearCorrect of an ITC ruling that its U.S. facilities could no longer receive transmissions of digital molds of patients' teeth -- allegedly infringing on patents from industry competitor Align Technology -- from the company's affiliate in Pakistan. Last month, the Federal Circuit entered a 2-1 decision in favor of ClearCorrect (see 1511100047), overturning ITC's previous ruling that it has the jurisdiction to block international transmissions of digital information. The agency is "in the process of considering whether to seek rehearing in this appeal" and "good cause exists for the requested extension," said ITC Counsel Sidney Rosenzweig in the motion. Rosenzweig also cited a "nonrefundable vacation" in mid-December and the planned absences of his supervisor and others at the commission during the holiday season as reasons the ITC seeks a new filing deadline. ClearCorrect and intervenor Align Technology indicated they don't oppose the motion for a deadline extension, said Rosenzweig. ClearCorrect General Counsel Michael Myers told us last month he "wouldn't be surprised" if the case is heard en banc. The current deadline for filing a rehearing petition is Dec. 28 but would be moved to Jan. 27 if ITC's motion for extension is granted.
The International Trade Commission asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to grant a 30-day extension for the filing of petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc its case against corrective orthodontic device manufacturer ClearCorrect. The agency submitted a motion for a deadline extension Tuesday, citing its counsel's conflicts of time and preparation for other arguments as reasons for the request. The case concerns the appeal by ClearCorrect of an ITC ruling that its U.S. facilities could no longer receive transmissions of digital molds of patients' teeth -- allegedly infringing on patents from industry competitor Align Technology -- from the company's affiliate in Pakistan. Last month, the Federal Circuit entered a 2-1 decision in favor of ClearCorrect (see 1511100047), overturning ITC's previous ruling that it has the jurisdiction to block international transmissions of digital information. The agency is "in the process of considering whether to seek rehearing in this appeal" and "good cause exists for the requested extension," said ITC Counsel Sidney Rosenzweig in the motion. Rosenzweig also cited a "nonrefundable vacation" in mid-December and the planned absences of his supervisor and others at the commission during the holiday season as reasons the ITC seeks a new filing deadline. ClearCorrect and intervenor Align Technology indicated they don't oppose the motion for a deadline extension, said Rosenzweig. ClearCorrect General Counsel Michael Myers told us last month he "wouldn't be surprised" if the case is heard en banc. The current deadline for filing a rehearing petition is Dec. 28 but would be moved to Jan. 27 if ITC's motion for extension is granted.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Nov. 30 - Dec. 6:
The government cannot seek Section 1592 customs penalties in court at a different level of culpability than alleged by CBP in a penalty notice, said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 1 (here). Affirming a Court of International Trade decision from 2012 (see 12041647), the appeals court held a government penalty claim for negligence is barred because the pre-penalty and penalty notices CBP issued to Nitek Electronics alleged only gross negligence.
There's only a very narrow set of circumstances under which furniture that is not part of a bedroom set may be subject to antidumping duties on wooden bedroom furniture from China, ruled the Court of International Trade on Dec. 1 as it remanded a scope ruling on Ethan Allen chests (here). Though standalone furniture may sometimes be included under the scope, finding part of a living room set subject to bedroom furniture duties exceeds that narrow exception, said the court as it sent the ruling back to the Commerce Department for reconsideration.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Nov. 23-29:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Nov. 16-22:
International Trade Today is providing readers with some of the top stories for Nov. 16-20 in case they were missed.
A federal judge granted a LEC motion to dismiss plaintiffs Sprint and Verizon's federal claims in an intercarrier compensation fight between LECs and interexchange carriers (IXCs) over “intraMTA” (major trading area) wireline-wireless traffic. A filing by CenturyLink LECs that included the Tuesday ruling was posted Friday in FCC docket 14-228. The principal issue is whether LECs can charge IXCs "access fees for access services that the LECs provide the IXCs to enable them to exchange interstate wireless intraMTA calls," said Judge Sidney Fitzwater, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division (In Re: IntraMTA Switched Access Charges Litigation, Civil Action No. 3:14-MD-2587-D). Concluding that the LECs can charge IXCs the access fees under their filed federal tariffs, "the court grants defendants’ joint motion and dismisses plaintiffs’ federal-law claims with prejudice," Fitzwater wrote in his opinion. "Concluding that plaintiffs have failed to plead plausible claims that the LEC defendants cannot charge access fees under filed state tariffs, the court grants defendants’ joint motion, but it also grants plaintiffs leave to replead their state-law claims." Fitzwater also denied an AT&T motion to refer the case to the FCC under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Both sides have asked the FCC to weigh in on the dispute (see 1505190056).