Justia International Law Opinion Summaries

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

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

The case concerns an administrative review of an antidumping duty order imposed by the United States Department of Commerce on certain large diameter welded pipe imported from Greece. The Greek producer, Corinth Pipeworks Pipe Industry SA, and its U.S. subsidiary, CPW America Co., were the sole exporter and importer of the subject merchandise. During the review period, Commerce required Corinth to submit cost data and a reconciliation of those costs to its financial statements. Corinth submitted responses to Commerce’s initial and two supplemental questionnaires, but Commerce found that the data did not reconcile as required, included double-counted costs, and failed to provide a single, complete reconciliation for the review period.After receiving Corinth’s responses, Commerce initially issued preliminary results finding no dumping. However, after reviewing the final submissions, Commerce determined that Corinth’s cost data were unreliable and incomplete. Commerce concluded that Corinth had withheld necessary information, failed to provide data in the requested form, and significantly impeded the review. As a result, Commerce applied “facts otherwise available” with an adverse inference, assigning Corinth the highest dumping margin alleged in the original petition. Corinth challenged this determination before the United States Court of International Trade, arguing that Commerce’s actions were unreasonable, that it was not given an opportunity to comment on a change in methodology, and that the adverse inference was not justified.The United States Court of International Trade sustained Commerce’s final determination, finding that Commerce’s use of total adverse facts available was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed. The Federal Circuit held that Commerce’s determinations were supported by substantial evidence and not contrary to law, that Corinth had failed to cooperate to the best of its ability, and that Commerce was not required to provide an additional opportunity to comment under the circumstances. The judgment of the Trade Court was affirmed. View "CORINTH PIPEWORKS PIPE INDUSTRY SA v. US " on Justia Law

Several small businesses and a coalition of states challenged a series of executive orders issued by the President that imposed new tariffs of unlimited duration on nearly all goods imported from most countries. These tariffs, referred to as the Trafficking Tariffs and Reciprocal Tariffs, were imposed in response to declared national emergencies related to drug trafficking and trade imbalances. The executive orders directed changes to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, resulting in significant increases in import duties on products from Canada, Mexico, China, and other major trading partners.The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States Court of International Trade (CIT), arguing that the President exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) by imposing these tariffs. The CIT granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that IEEPA did not authorize the President to impose the challenged tariffs and permanently enjoined their enforcement. The government appealed, and the Federal Circuit consolidated the cases, stayed the injunction pending appeal, and heard the matter en banc.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, holding that IEEPA’s grant of authority to “regulate” importation does not include the power to impose tariffs of the type and scope at issue. The court found that IEEPA does not mention tariffs, duties, or taxes, and contrasted it with other statutes where Congress has explicitly delegated tariff authority to the President with clear limitations. The court also concluded that the government’s interpretation would raise serious constitutional concerns under the major questions and non-delegation doctrines. The Federal Circuit affirmed the CIT’s declaratory judgment that the executive orders were invalid, but vacated the universal injunction and remanded for the CIT to reconsider the scope of injunctive relief in light of recent Supreme Court guidance. View "V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump" on Justia Law

Valeo North America imported T-series aluminum sheets from China and sought a determination from the U.S. Department of Commerce as to whether these products were subject to existing antidumping and countervailing duty orders on common alloy aluminum sheet from China. The dispute centered on whether Valeo’s T-series sheets, which have a manganese-based core but are not registered with the Aluminum Association, fell within the scope of the orders, which cover certain aluminum sheets “as designated by the Aluminum Association.” Valeo argued that only registered alloys were covered and that its heat-treated T-series sheets should be excluded.The United States Department of Commerce initially ruled that Valeo’s T-series sheets were within the scope of the orders, interpreting the language to include unregistered alloys with the relevant chemical composition. Valeo challenged this determination at the United States Court of International Trade, which found the scope language ambiguous and remanded the case for further explanation, particularly regarding the treatment of unregistered alloys and the impact of heat treatment. On remand, Commerce again found the scope language ambiguous, considered additional regulatory factors, and reaffirmed that Valeo’s products were covered. The Trade Court sustained this remand determination, and Valeo appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case de novo. It held that the language “as designated by the Aluminum Association” in the orders was ambiguous and did not unambiguously exclude unregistered alloys. The court found that Commerce’s analysis under the regulatory framework was supported by substantial evidence and that Valeo’s arguments regarding heat treatment and the timing of Customs instructions were unpersuasive. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Trade Court’s decision, upholding Commerce’s determination that Valeo’s T-series sheets are within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders. View "VALEO NORTH AMERICA, INC. v. US " on Justia Law

The case involves Tau-Ken Temir LLP, JSC NMC Tau-Ken Samruk, and the Ministry of Trade and Integration of the Republic of Kazakhstan (collectively, "Tau-Ken") appealing a decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade. The U.S. Department of Commerce had determined that the Republic of Kazakhstan subsidized Tau-Ken’s production of silicon metal, warranting a countervailable subsidy rate of 160%. This determination was based on Commerce rejecting a Tau-Ken submission that was filed 1 hour and 41 minutes past the deadline.The U.S. Court of International Trade sustained Commerce’s decision, finding that Commerce did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the late submission and applying an adverse inference when selecting from facts otherwise available. The Trade Court likened the case to Dongtai Peak Honey Industries Co. v. United States, where Commerce had similarly rejected untimely submissions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and found that Commerce abused its discretion in rejecting Tau-Ken’s submission. The court noted that the rejection significantly impeded the goal of determining an accurate countervailable subsidy rate and that accepting the late submission would not have burdened Commerce or implicated finality concerns. The court also found that Tau-Ken had made diligent efforts to comply with the deadlines and that the technical issues encountered were legitimate.The Federal Circuit vacated the Trade Court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions for Commerce to accept the September 16 submission and proceed with the countervailing duty investigation accordingly. The court emphasized the importance of determining subsidy rates as accurately as possible and found that Commerce’s rejection of the submission was a clear error of judgment. View "TAU-KEN TEMIR LLP v. US " on Justia Law