We are pleased to announce that our team’s fourth-annual international trade law year-in-review report was published just before the New Year. In it, we take a detailed look at how 2022 played out and explore how 2023 might develop. As companies continue to work through the challenges associated with supply chain dislocations, geopolitical turmoil, and
On May 1, 2019, the CIT sustained Commerce’s remand redetermination results following a countervailing duty investigation for certain hot-rolled steel flat products from the Republic of Korea. The court reviewed two issues on remand, Commerce’s selection of the highest calculated AFA rate and Commerce’s corroboration. Concerning the first issued on the selection of the AFA rate, the CIT found that Plaintiff POSCO did not exhaust its administrative remedies. The second issue presented was whether or not the selected 1.05% AFA rate was corroborated based upon substantial evidence and whether Commerce’s selection of a non-de-minimis AFA rate was appropriate because it was a rate calculated for a cooperating Korean company in another countervailing duty proceeding for a similar program.
On May 2, 2019, in the case of garage door openers that were redesigned to avoid infringement on a registered patent, the CIT denied the ITC’s motion for a stay pending appeal based on the grounds that the ITC did not meet its burden for a stay. A stay of the preliminary injunction and all other proceedings in this matter was not warranted as: (1) the ITC has not demonstrated a “strong showing” of likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the ITC has not demonstrated that it will be irreparably injured absent a stay in this action, (3) the issuance of a stay would substantially injure another party, the Plaintiff, and (4) the public interest is neutral. For those reasons, the CIT denied the ITC’s motion for a stay.
Congratulations! You have developed or launched an innovative new product or service, and your business dreams are becoming a reality. It’s all very exciting. One thing you may not have considered much, however, is whether your innovations or brand are susceptible to infringement in the international context. Will competitors try to make a knock-off product or steal your trade secrets? Are foreign companies going to ship infringing articles to the U.S. market? Protecting your intellectual property (IP) is key. Here are some fundamental suggestions to thwart such threats to your growing business.
On March 22, 2018, the President issued a Presidential Memorandum in which he announced the actions the United States will take in response to China’s allegedly unfair trade practices found by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) in its Section 301 investigation of China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation. The actions are as follows:
On Friday, August 18, 2017, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) formally initiated a Section 301 investigation into China’s intellectual property practices. The decision to open the investigation came from President Trump’s executive memorandum on August 14, 2017. For more information on the executive memorandum, please see our recent post.
On August 14, 2017, the Trump Administration moved toward self-initiating a case against China under section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. That legal provision is broad, and authorizes the President to “take all appropriate action, including retaliation, to obtain the removal of any act, policy, or practice of a foreign government that violates an international trade agreement or is unjustified, unreasonable, or discriminatory, and that burdens or restricts U.S. commerce.” Past administrations have been hesitant to use the broad powers of the act to impose additional tariffs and quotas due largely to the possibility of retaliation and the uncertain effect on US companies. The Trump Administration announced that it was using the broad statute to zero in on issues involving U.S. intellectual property rights, theft of such trade secrets, and pressures by China forcing U.S. companies to transfer technological knowledge before setting up operations in China.
On Wednesday, Judge Richard Sullivan of the Southern District of New York relieved the Bank of China from an order issuing $50,000 of daily fines for failing to comply with two subpoenas for information on account holders accused of selling goods counterfeit “Gucci” goods. The matter provides an interesting case study of at least one dilemma facing foreign companies doing business in the United States – whether to comply with a US-issued subpoena knowing that compliance would break foreign law.
While the future of doing business in Cuba remains uncertain, recent policy changes surrounding U.S. – Cuba relations has resulted in a more immediate opportunity to reevaluate registering trademarks in Cuba.
President Obama’s announcement to normalize U.S. relations with Cuba has created a flood of momentum for U.S. companies hoping to open new business markets there; however, business owners should spend the time now to learn the legal and regulatory framework they will encounter in Cuba, and the steps they can take immediately to be ready when opportunities arise.