In Arko Foods International, Inc., v. U.S., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a 2009 Court of International Trade judgment that although mellorine is a dairy product, it is not an article of milk as milk doesn't provide its essential character. Instead, the frozen dairy product it is classifiable as other edible ice.
Former Skullcandy CEO Rich Alden’s abrupt departure from the company he founded followed three employees’ complaints of “improper workplace conduct,” the company said in a 10-Q filed with the SEC.
The International Trade Commission has voted to institute a section 337 patent-based investigation of certain light-emitting diodes (LEDs) and products containing same (337-TA-798), such as light fixtures and automotive lights. The investigation is based on a complaint filed by Samsung LED Co., Ltd., of Korea and Samsung LED America of Atlanta, GA, that alleges patent violations by OSRAM GmbH of Germany; OSRAM Opto Semiconductors GmbH of Germany; OSRAM Opto Semiconductors, Inc. of Sunnyvale, CA; and OSRAM Sylvania, Inc. of Danvers, MA.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has reversed and remanded1 a Court of International Trade decision that had barred a surety from suing on a claim that arose after the protest period expired. The litigant, Hartford Fire Insurance Company, claimed that CBP's failure to disclose certain criminal information about its client, an importer of crawfish from China, made its bond voidable at Hartford’s election.
Rovi appears to have resolved its patent battle with Toshiba, after Rovi executives said in a conference call that it reached agreement with Toshiba to embed its TotalGuide in flat-panel TVs in the U.S. and Europe starting in 2012. The licensing pact with Toshiba would appear aimed at settling a complaint Rovi filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission earlier seeking an investigation of its products with interactive program guides and parental controls. Rovi hasn’t signed a licensing agreement with Toshiba for Japan, but “remains hopeful” that a deal can be reached, Rovi CEO Fred Amoroso said. It wasn’t clear at our deadline whether Rovi would drop its complaint against Toshiba. Rovi officials weren’t available for comment.
The International Trade Commission has voted to institute a section 337 patent-based investigation on certain portable electronic devices and related software (e.g. hardware and software used in a variety of portable electronic devices, including mobile communication equipment), pursuant to a complaint filed by Apple Inc. of Cupertino, CA against HTC Corp. of China; HTC America, Inc., of Bellevue, WA; and Exedea, Inc., of Houston, TX. (Inv. No. 337-TA-797).
On August 9, 2011, U.S. Trade Representative Kirk announced that the U.S. is taking the next step in a dispute regarding the Government of Guatemala’s "apparent failure" to effectively enforce its labor laws by requesting the establishment of an arbitral panel under the Dominican Republic-Central America-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA). This is the first labor case that the U.S. has ever brought under a trade agreement.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection has posted an updated version of its spreadsheet of ACE ESAR A2.2 (Initial Entry Types) programming issues.
On July 19, 2011, the European Council announced that it had adopted a regulation to consolidate and replace three separate directives regarding the analysis of fiber compositions, use of textile fiber names, and related labeling of fiber composition of textile products. The regulation includes new rules for products containing non-textile parts of animal origin, and explicitly states the responsibility of manufacturers, importers, and distributors for label accuracy, etc.
The International Trade Commission has voted to institute a section 337 patent-based investigation on certain electronic digital media devices and components thereof (including mobile phone handsets and tablet computers, in addition to components such as software, touchpads, and hardware interfaces), pursuant to a complaint filed by Apple, Inc., of Cupertino, CA. against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., of Korea; Samsung Electronics America, Inc., of Ridgefield Park, NJ; and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, of Richardson, TX. (Inv. No. 337-TA-796).