The International Trade Commission has opened two Section 337 investigations on imported audio players and components (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1329, -1330). The investigations follow two separate complaints, filed Aug. 9 by Google, which alleged that Sonos' audio players infringed on seven of Google's patents covering speech recognition and hot word detection on multiple devices (see 2208120036). Sonos asked the ITC to merge the complaint with another by Google, which alleged infringement of four separate patents. Alternatively, Sonos asked the commission to consolidate the resulting investigations if and when they are instituted, arguing “significant overlap” between the two complaints (see 2208240043). The commission has so far declined to do so, assigning a separate administrative law judge to each case. The investigation is the latest in a series of ITC and court battles between Google and Sonos.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade was wrong to dismiss the government's case against importer Katana Racing seeking to collect over $5.7 million in unpaid duties due to an expired statute of limitations, the U.S. argued in its Sept. 13 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The government's suit was in fact timely filed since Katana could not revoke its waiver of the statute of limitations, the brief said. The U.S. said no law backs the finding that such a waiver could be revoked and stop the government from filing suit for unpaid duties, and that the trade court's ruling "leads to absurd results" (U.S. v. Katana Racing, Fed. Cir. #22-1832).
The Court of International Trade “bent over backwards” to allow the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to comply with its Administrative Procedure Act obligations in its imposition of the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods when it remanded the duties to the agency for further explanation on the rationale for the actions it took in the context of the comments it received, said an amicus brief filed Sept. 14 in the massive Section 301 litigation from the Retail Litigation Center, CTA, the National Retail Federation and four other trade associations. With USTR’s “non-responsive” answer to the remand order, the time has come for the court “to impose the normal remedy for unlawful agency action” and to vacate the lists 3 and 4A tariffs, it said (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052).
Comments are due to the International Trade Commission by Sept. 23 in a potential case on automated storage and retrieval systems and automated put walls. New Jersey-based warehouse automation company OPEX filed a complaint with the ITC on Sept. 9, alleging Chinese company HC Robotics and Pennsylvania-based Invata imported merchandise, namely the Omnisort and its associated vehicles, that infringed on two of OPEX's patents. The patents cover software systems for automated sorting and retrieval of warehouse items. OPEX has asked the ITC to issue a limited exclusion order, barring all of the respondents’ automated put walls and automated storage and retrieval systems, associated vehicles, associated control software and component parts thereof that infringe on at least one valid claim of at least one patent as well as cease and desist orders against both respondents.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Plaintiffs in a case challenging President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw a tariff exclusion for bifacial solar panels reserved all their rights to the extent that the plaintiffs are affected by the U.S.'s inadvertent liquidations of the entries at issue in the action, the plaintiffs said in a Sept. 13 reply brief. The reserved rights include, but are not limited to, "opposing the Government’s actions and legal authority to void liquidations without court approval and without providing specificity that would allow for meaningful comment, the brief said (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, CIT #20-03941).
The Court of International Trade “bent over backwards” to allow the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to comply with its Administrative Procedure Act obligations in its imposition of the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods when it remanded the duties to the agency for further explanation on the rationale for the actions it took in the context of the comments it received, said an amicus brief filed Sept. 14 in the massive Section 301 litigation from the Retail Litigation Center, CTA, the National Retail Federation and four other trade associations. With USTR’s “non-responsive” answer to the remand order, the time has come for the court “to impose the normal remedy for unlawful agency action” and to vacate the lists 3 and 4A tariffs, it said (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052).
CBP must refund the interest accrued on duty overpayments, phone case importer Otter Products argued in a Sept. 12 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. Having had the duty overpayments themselves refunded following prior court action at CIT and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Otter took to the court again to request the interest. The plaintiff argued that since the full payments were never made voluntarily, it is entitled to a refund of the interest accrued on the payments made in connection with prior disclosures, and that the statute unambiguously mandates the maximum penalty for prior disclosures involving negligent conduct (Otter Products v. United States, CIT #22-00033).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Sept. 5-11: