Justia International Law Opinion Summaries

A Greek and Australian citizen and a U.S. citizen, who married in Australia, had a child together and lived in Australia before relocating to Greece. In late 2022, the family traveled to Maine for a planned vacation. On the day before their scheduled return to Greece, the mother informed the father that she and the child would not return with him. The father returned to Greece alone, while the mother and child remained in Maine, where the child began receiving developmental services and became integrated into the local community. The child was later diagnosed with autism and enrolled in a therapeutic program. The mother filed for divorce in Maine, and the father subsequently sought the child’s return to Greece under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.The Maine District Court found that the mother wrongfully retained the child in Maine as of January 4, 2023, but that the father did not file a petition for the child’s return in a Maine court until April 19, 2024—more than one year later. The court also found that the child was well settled in Maine, with significant family support, stable living arrangements, and access to specialized services. Exercising its discretion, the court denied the father’s petition to return the child to Greece. The father appealed.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court determined that the order was reviewable under the collateral order exception to the final judgment rule. The court held that the District Court did not err in finding the date of wrongful retention, nor in concluding that the father’s petition was untimely under the Hague Convention. The court also affirmed the finding that the child was well settled in Maine and held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for return. The judgment was affirmed. View "Xamplas v. Xamplas" on Justia Law

Brita LP held a patent for a gravity-fed water filter system designed to remove contaminants, particularly lead, from water using filter media that included activated carbon and a lead scavenger. The patent claimed that the filter would achieve a specific performance metric, the Filter Rate and Performance (FRAP) factor, of about 350 or less. Although the patent described various types of filter media, such as carbon blocks and mixed media, it only provided working examples and detailed formulations for carbon-block filters that met the claimed FRAP factor. The patent also included test results showing that only carbon-block filters achieved the required performance, while mixed media filters did not.Brita filed a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) under section 337, alleging that several companies imported and sold water filters infringing its patent. After a Markman hearing, the administrative law judge (ALJ) found that the asserted claims met the written description and enablement requirements and determined there was a violation of section 337. Upon review, the ITC reversed the ALJ’s findings, concluding that the claims were invalid for lack of written description and enablement as to any filter media other than carbon blocks, and that the term “filter usage lifetime claimed by a manufacturer or seller of the filter” was indefinite.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s decision. The court held that the patent’s specification did not adequately describe or enable the full scope of the claimed invention, specifically for non-carbon-block filter media, and that substantial evidence supported the ITC’s findings. The court did not reach the issue of indefiniteness, as the claims were already found invalid. The disposition was affirmed. View "BRITA LP v. ITC " on Justia Law

Causam Enterprises, Inc. owns several patents related to “demand response” technology, which allows electrical utilities to reduce power demand in response to certain conditions. Causam filed a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC), alleging that Resideo Smart Homes Technology (Tianjin) and its affiliate Ademco, Inc. were importing and selling internet-connected smart thermostats that infringed method claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,394,268, which Causam claimed to own. Causam sought to exclude these products from importation. During the ITC investigation, respondents argued that Causam did not own the patent and that Resideo’s products did not infringe the asserted claims.The assigned administrative law judge (ALJ) at the ITC found that Causam did not own the ’268 patent and that Resideo’s products did not infringe the claims. The full Commission, upon review, adopted only the noninfringement finding and did not address the ownership issue. Causam appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, challenging the noninfringement determination and seeking a ruling on ownership. Meanwhile, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) held, in a separate inter partes review, that claim 1 of the ’268 patent was unpatentable, and the Federal Circuit affirmed that decision in a companion case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that Causam owns the ’268 patent, interpreting the relevant assignment agreements to exclude continuations-in-part from a prior assignment, thus leaving ownership with Causam. However, the court did not reach the noninfringement issue because its affirmance of the PTAB’s finding that claim 1 is unpatentable rendered the appeal moot. The court therefore dismissed the appeal as moot. View "CAUSAM ENTERPRISES, INC. v. ITC " on Justia Law

Petitioners representing domestic honey producers requested that the U.S. Department of Commerce and the International Trade Commission investigate whether raw honey imported from Vietnam and other countries was being sold in the United States at less than fair value, causing material injury to the domestic industry. During the investigation, both agencies made affirmative preliminary and final determinations supporting the imposition of antidumping duties. The agencies also found “critical circumstances,” meaning there was a surge of imports after the petition was filed but before the preliminary determination, which could undermine the effectiveness of any eventual duties. As a result, the suspension of liquidation and the imposition of duties were backdated by 90 days to cover these imports.The importers of Vietnamese honey and their trade association challenged the Commission’s final determination of critical circumstances in the United States Court of International Trade. They argued that the Commission improperly focused on the period before the antidumping duty order was issued, rather than considering whether the import surge would undermine the remedial effect of the order after its issuance. The Trade Court rejected this argument, upholding the Commission’s determination as both lawful and supported by substantial evidence.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the Trade Court’s decision de novo, applying the same standard. The Federal Circuit held that the statute does not require the Commission to focus solely on the period after the antidumping duty order is issued. Instead, the relevant inquiry is whether the surge of imports before the preliminary determination is likely to undermine the remedial effect of the order, starting from the suspension date. The court also found that the Commission’s findings were supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the Court of International Trade. View "SWEET HARVEST FOODS v. US " on Justia Law

Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd., an Indian manufacturer, was subject to a countervailing duty investigation initiated by the U.S. Department of Commerce after Daikin America, Inc., a U.S. producer, filed petitions regarding imports of granular polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin from India and Russia. During the period of investigation, Gujarat purchased wind energy from Inox Wind Limited, a cross-owned Indian company that had received a subsidized land lease from the Indian government. Inox sold all its wind energy to Gujarat, which was used at Gujarat’s production facility to manufacture PTFE resin and other products. The wind energy from Inox represented a small fraction of the total energy consumed at the facility.Commerce determined that the subsidy received by Inox should be attributed to Gujarat under the cross-ownership regulation at 19 C.F.R. § 351.525(b)(6)(iv), resulting in a significant portion of the countervailing duty rate assessed against Gujarat. Commerce reasoned that because all of Inox’s wind energy was supplied to Gujarat, the input was “primarily dedicated” to Gujarat’s downstream production. Gujarat challenged this determination before the United States Court of International Trade, arguing that Commerce misapplied the “primarily dedicated” standard. The Trade Court agreed, finding that the regulation required more than mere consumption of the input by the downstream producer and that the facts did not support attributing the subsidy under the cross-ownership provision. The Trade Court ordered Commerce to remove the portion of the duty rate based on this attribution, and Commerce complied under protest.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Trade Court’s judgment. The Federal Circuit held that the cross-ownership regulation does not apply solely because the downstream producer is the sole consumer of the input. Instead, the regulation requires a fact-specific inquiry into whether the input’s production is primarily dedicated to the downstream product, as reflected in the regulatory history and examples. The court affirmed the removal of the subsidy attribution and the adjusted duty rate. View "GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LTD. v. US " on Justia Law

The case concerns an antidumping duty investigation by the U.S. Department of Commerce into certain carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Germany. The Department selected a German steel producer as a mandatory respondent and required it to provide detailed information about its products and production costs. The producer requested that Commerce modify its model-match methodology to recognize certain steel products—specifically, “sour service” steel used for petroleum transport and pressure vessels—as distinct categories due to their unique properties and higher production costs. Commerce rejected these requests, finding one untimely and the other unsupported. Additionally, the producer was unable to provide product-specific cost data for non-prime steel plate, which is sold as “odds and ends,” and instead reported average costs. Commerce, however, used the likely selling price of non-prime plate as a proxy for its cost of production.The U.S. Court of International Trade reviewed Commerce’s determinations multiple times. It affirmed Commerce’s rejection of the proposed new product category for sour pressure vessel plate as untimely, but required Commerce to reconsider its approach to the cost of production for non-prime plate, citing precedent that actual cost data, not likely selling price, should be used. On remand, Commerce maintained its use of likely selling price as facts otherwise available, and the Trade Court ultimately sustained this approach, while also instructing Commerce to accept the new category for sour transport plate in light of analogous precedent.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Trade Court’s decision to uphold Commerce’s rejection of the untimely model-match proposal for sour pressure vessel plate. However, the Federal Circuit held that it was unreasonable for Commerce to use likely selling price as facts otherwise available for cost of production, as this methodology does not reasonably reflect actual production costs. The court vacated the Trade Court’s decision on this issue and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "AG DER DILLINGER HUTTENWERKE v. US " on Justia Law

In 2010, the Venezuelan government expropriated assets belonging to a Venezuelan subsidiary of a U.S.-based energy company. The subsidiary had provided drilling services to a state-owned Venezuelan energy company, but after a breakdown in their business relationship and significant unpaid invoices, Venezuelan authorities blockaded the subsidiary’s operations, issued public statements about nationalization, and ultimately transferred the subsidiary’s assets to the state-owned company, which began operating them. The U.S. parent company claimed that this expropriation rendered its ownership interest in the subsidiary worthless and deprived it of its rights to control the subsidiary’s assets.The U.S. parent company and its Venezuelan subsidiary filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against Venezuela and its state-owned energy company, alleging unlawful expropriation. The district court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit initially affirmed. However, the Supreme Court vacated that decision, clarifying the standard for the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) expropriation exception. On remand, the D.C. Circuit found that only the U.S. parent company had a valid claim under international law, as the domestic-takings rule barred the subsidiary’s claim. The district court later dismissed Venezuela as a defendant, leaving the state-owned company as the sole defendant.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the state-owned company’s motion to dismiss. The court held that the FSIA’s expropriation exception applied because Venezuela indirectly expropriated the U.S. company’s property, the state-owned company owns and operates the expropriated assets, and it engages in commercial activity in the United States. The court also held that personal jurisdiction was proper and that the act-of-state doctrine, as limited by the Second Hickenlooper Amendment, did not bar the claim. View "Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co. v. Petroleos De Venezuela, S.A." on Justia Law

A German telecommunications company invested nearly $100 million in an Indian company through a Singaporean subsidiary, acquiring a significant minority stake. The Indian government, through its wholly owned space company, later terminated a contract with the Indian company, prompting the German investor to initiate arbitration in Switzerland under a bilateral investment treaty (BIT) between Germany and India. The arbitral tribunal ruled in favor of the German company, awarding it over $93 million, and courts in Switzerland, Germany, and Singapore confirmed the award.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia was then asked to confirm the arbitral award. India moved to dismiss, arguing sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), forum non conveniens, and that the dispute did not fall within the scope of the BIT’s arbitration clause. The district court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that the FSIA’s arbitration exception applied, that forum non conveniens was unavailable in such proceedings, and that the parties had delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrators, thus precluding judicial review of those issues. The court also found that India had forfeited other merits defenses by not raising them earlier.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the denial of dismissal on immunity and forum non conveniens grounds, but held that the district court erred in refusing to consider India’s substantive defenses to enforcement of the award. The appellate court found that the BIT did not clearly and unmistakably delegate exclusive authority over arbitrability to the arbitrators, so the district court must consider India’s merits defenses under the New York Convention. The judgment confirming the award was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Deutsche Telekom, A.G. v. Republic of India" on Justia Law

An instrumentality of Iran attempted to wire nearly $10 million through an American bank, but the funds were blocked by the U.S. government under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) due to Iran’s designation as a state sponsor of terrorism. Two groups of plaintiffs, each holding substantial judgments against Iran for its support of terrorist acts, sought to attach these blocked funds to satisfy their judgments. The funds had been frozen by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and were the subject of a pending civil-forfeiture action initiated by the United States.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia initially quashed the plaintiffs’ writs of attachment. The court reasoned, first, that the funds were not “blocked assets” as defined by the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) and thus were immune from attachment. Second, it held that the government’s earlier-filed civil-forfeiture action invoked the prior exclusive jurisdiction doctrine, barring any subsequent in rem proceedings against the same property. The district court also noted that the existence of the Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund suggested Congress did not intend to encourage individual attachment actions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed. The court held that the funds in question are “blocked assets” under TRIA, as they remain frozen by OFAC and are not subject to a license required by a statute other than IEEPA. The court further held that the prior exclusive jurisdiction doctrine does not bar multiple in rem proceedings filed in the same court. Accordingly, the court concluded that neither sovereign immunity nor the prior exclusive jurisdiction doctrine prevented the plaintiffs from seeking attachment of the funds and reversed the district court’s order quashing the writs of attachment. View "Estate of Levin v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Several U.S. companies that import products from China challenged the imposition of tariffs on certain Chinese goods, known as List 3 and List 4A tariffs. These tariffs were implemented by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) after an investigation found that China engaged in unreasonable or discriminatory practices that burdened U.S. commerce. The initial tariffs, covering $50 billion in imports (Lists 1 and 2), were not contested. However, after China retaliated with its own tariffs, USTR expanded the tariffs to cover an additional $200 billion (List 3) and later $120 billion (List 4A) in Chinese imports. The plaintiffs argued that these expanded tariffs exceeded USTR’s statutory authority and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by failing to properly consider public comments.The United States Court of International Trade reviewed the case first. It found that USTR acted within its authority under Section 307(a)(1)(B) of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows modification of trade actions when the burden on U.S. commerce increases or decreases. However, the court also determined that USTR had not adequately responded to significant public comments as required by the APA. The court ordered a limited remand for USTR to further explain its reasoning and how it considered public input. After USTR provided a more detailed explanation, the trial court sustained the List 3 and List 4A tariffs.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The appellate court held that Section 307(a)(1)(C) independently authorized USTR’s modifications, allowing escalatory trade actions when the original action was no longer appropriate. The court also found that USTR’s remand redetermination satisfied the APA’s notice-and-comment requirements. Thus, the Federal Circuit affirmed and sustained the challenged tariffs. View "HMTX Industries LLC v. United States" on Justia Law