Apple and Bose "have a long-standing business relationship and, after discussions with Apple, Bose intends to dismiss and terminate" the legal actions in which it alleged Beats Electronics violated five Bose patents on noise-canceling headphones. So said Apple and Bose in a settlement agreement (http://1.usa.gov/ZY4Ger) signed Sept. 26 and posted Friday at the International Trade Commission, where the companies moved jointly to have the ITC’s Tariff Act Section 337 investigation into the allegations terminated. The heavily redacted settlement agreement, which was signed by Noreen Krall, Apple vice president-chief litigation counsel, and Mark Sullivan, Bose vice president-general counsel and secretary, was the first time in the nearly three-month-old case that Apple’s name appeared in the case under ITC docket 337-TA-927. Bose filed identical complaints against Beats on July 25 at the ITC 1407290010 and in U.S. District Court in Wilmington, Delaware, a week before Apple completed the deal to acquire Beats for $3 billion with a "Welcome to the family" page on its website (http://bit.ly/1uV9Hjh). Bose and Beats moved jointly to have the Delaware action stayed pending the outcome of the ITC probe and on Friday moved to have that case dismissed as well. It’s unclear why two weeks passed between the Sept. 26 signing of the settlement agreement and the filing of the joint motion Friday to have the ITC investigation terminated. In the interim, Bose and Beats moved jointly Oct. 1 to request a two-week deadline extension to Oct. 20 for the filing a discovery statement and proposed procedural schedule in the ITC probe (http://1.usa.gov/ZY4xHX). Administrative Law Judge David Shaw granted the motion the next day. As of midday Tuesday, Shaw hadn’t signed off on or granted the motion to terminate the investigation. Apple and Bose representatives didn’t immediately comment.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Oct. 6-12:
CBP rejected a protest filed by Kenton Tobacco that asked the agency to reclassify tobacco under "actual use" tariff provisions despite being previously entered under a different subheading. The July 18 ruling, HQ H240589, also looked at whether broker error, which the company said resulted in the misclassification, can negate the requirements for actual use provision declarations. The ruling, a further review of protest, found that a declaration had to be made at time of entry for classification under the actual use provision. The actual use provisions at issue requires the importer to demonstrate the planned use for the unmanufactured tobacco.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Sept. 29 - Oct. 5:
USTelecom petitioned the FCC to give ILECs a break on various legacy rules so they can concentrate on the buildout of fiber and modern communications networks. The Monday petition has a list of rules for which it seeks commission forbearance.
USTelecom petitioned the FCC to give ILECs a break on various legacy rules so they can concentrate on the buildout of fiber and modern communications networks. The Monday petition has a list of rules for which it seeks commission forbearance.
Bose and Beats Electronics each have until Monday to file a “discovery statement" at the International Trade Commission describing information and evidence that each side plans to submit “to prove its own case” as well as evidence to be sought from “other parties and third persons,” said an evidentiary order signed Monday by Administrative Law Judge David Shaw (http://1.usa.gov/1rpJb1b). Bose has alleged Beats noise-canceling headphones violate five Bose patents, and Beats has denied the allegations on grounds that the patents are not “valid or enforceable” (CED Sept 23 p6). The discovery statements also need to contain a “proposed procedural schedule” of important dates in the case, including the scheduling of an evidentiary hearing and how long the hearing is expected to take, Shaw’s order said. “In view” of Shaw’s “current docket,” it’s “likely” the hearing will take place in early May, the order said.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Sept. 22-28:
The Fish and Wildlife Service issued a public notice on Sept. 23 advising the trade community that it will no longer allow importers of seized merchandise to contest forfeiture both administratively through a petition for remission and in the courts through judicial forfeiture proceedings. Effective Oct. 7, the agency is amending the instructions on its Notice of Seizure and Proposed Forfeiture to remove language that suggested importers can pursue both remedies.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Sept. 15-21: