The International Trade Commission is seeking comments by Jan. 18 on public interest factors related to Innovation First’s Section 337 trade secret complaint against CVS Pharmacy’s imports of robotic toy fish. Innovation First is seeking a limited exclusion order and cease and desist order against imports of the product, which was manufactured in China by Zuru. According to the complaint, a former Chinese employee of Innovation First developed the technologies covered by the trade secrets. The employee then left the company, and in violation of the terms of his separation agreement shared the secrets with his new employer, Zuru.
The International Trade Administration published notices in the Jan. 10 Federal Register on the following AD/CV proceedings (any notices that announce changes to AD/CV duty rates, scope, affected firms, or effective dates will be detailed in another ITT article):
The International Trade Administration issued the preliminary results of its antidumping duty administrative review of certain cased pencils from China (A-570-827). The ITA preliminarily assigned Dixon Stationary1 an AD rate of 92.46 percent, . It also rescinded the review with respect to three companies for which review requests were withdrawn.2 These preliminary results are not in effect. The ITA may modify them in the final results of this review and change the estimated AD cash deposit rates for this company.
Terphane’s copolymer surface films are outside the scope of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film from Brazil (A-351-841), said the International Trade Administration in a scope ruling. The films include a non-PET performance enhancing layer of greater than 0.00001 inches thick, which satisfies one of the exclusions in the scope, it said. Domestic industry argued that the in-line production process of the film, as well as the performance-enhancing layer’s use as a primer, meant that Terphane’s product should be in-scope. The ITA, however, found neither of those factors affected the scope treatment of the copolymer surface films. Instead, the thickness of the layer and its use of materials distinct from PET meant the scope of the order doesn’t cover the product, it said.
The International Trade Administration issued the final results of the antidumping duty administrative review of polyester staple fiber from China (A-570-905). One of the two reviewed companies, Far Eastern, did not cooperate in the review and was assigned the China-wide rate. The new rate is effective Jan. 11, and will be implemented by CBP soon.
The International Trade Commission should exercise caution when issuing exclusion orders related to standard-essential patents when the holder has entered into certain types of licensing agreements, said the Patent and Trademark Office and Department of Justice in a joint letter to the ITC. When the patent holder has agreed to license a standard essential patent on reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms or fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, the patent case could be an attempt at asserting market power by forcing the respondent to accept stricter terms than those available to other licensees, they said.
On Jan. 9 the Food and Drug Administration posted new and revised versions of the following Import Alerts on the detention without physical examination of:
On Jan. 9 the Foreign Agricultural Service issued the following GAIN reports:
The Foreign Trade Zones Board issued the following notices for Jan. 10:
The Court of International Trade agreed to a request by the International Trade Administration to expand a remand of the 2009-10 antidumping administrative review of frozen warmwater shrimp from China (A-570-893) to address recent fraud allegations. The final results of the proceeding were originally remanded Nov. 30 for the ITA to better explain its selection of India as the surrogate country to value inputs used by Hilltop International during the review. After receiving a request for changed circumstances review that alleged fraud by Hilltop during the proceeding, the ITA asked CIT to broaden the remand’s scope. The ITA did not disclose the fraud allegations in this case, and Hilltop argued it was required to in order to have the scope expanded. The court, however, found it sufficient that there was no evidence the ITA’s request was made in bad faith.