A lower court decision that would have blocked Samsung from importing and selling its Galaxy Nexus smartphone was reversed and remanded by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. A U.S. District Court had granted a preliminary injunction sought by Apple on patent grounds.

Chief Judge Rader of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit appointed three new members to the court’s advisory council. The new members, appointed to three-year terms that began Oct. 1, are David Folsom (former Chief Judge of the Eastern District of Texas), Merit Systems Protection Board Chairman Susan Grundmann, and Martin Hockey from the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. In addition, Chief Judge Rader appointed Ed Reines and Jeanne Davidson, current members of the Advisory Council, to new three-year terms.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of Sioux Honey Association v. Hartford Insurance Co., which was decided by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in February. Plaintiffs’ challenge cited both the failure of the U.S. trade agencies to collect, liquidate and distribute new shipper antidumping duties, and the failure of the sureties for Chinese food product shippers to require and fulfill sufficient bond guarantees. Both the Court of International Trade and CAFC dismissed the case. In light of the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari, CAFC’s ruling will stand.

The Court of International Trade dismissed Celta Agencies’ challenge of liquidation instructions for its entries subject to the antidumping order on steel concrete reinforcing bars from Latvia (A-449-804). Celta said its entries of reinforcing bars should have been liquidated at the company-specific rate of the producer instead of the all others rate. CIT, however, said it had no subject matter jurisdiction under the 28 USC 1581(a) customs protest denial challenge provision, because Celta was in fact challenging International Trade Administration liquidation instructions, not an action by Customs. CIT said the challenge was correctly filed under the 28 USC 1581(i) residual jurisdiction provision, but the statute of limitations for its use, two years, had already expired.

Without comment, the Supreme Court denied John Mezzalingua Associates’ bid for a hearing of its appeal of an International Trade Commission patent case and subsequent Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmance of the ITC’s decision. Mezzalingua had claimed it incurred litigation costs to protect its patents for the purpose of later seeking license deals, and so satisfied the domestic industry prong of Section 337 investigations. CAFC agreed with the ITC that the litigation costs do not satisfy the domestic industry requirement, saying that "allowing patent infringement litigation activities alone to constitute a domestic industry would place the bar…so low as to effectively render it meaningless."

The International Trade Commission (ITC) is increasingly used as the legal forum for patent fights, allowing for the potential skirting of anti-competitive rules set through legal precedent, said Federal Trade Commissioner Julie Brill. Brill spoke at an event Oct. 3 at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Brill said the ITC needs to ensure that remedies related to standard-essential patents licensed on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) terms do not conflict with the public interest. Use of the ITC as a venue for patent challenges has tripled in the last 10 years, said Brill, because the ITC is not required to follow the precedent set by the Supreme Court's decision in eBay vs. MercExchange. The 2006 case barred automatic injunctions for patent infringement. Brill said companies' use of the ITC as a venue for patent challenges "threatens to undermine the pro-competitive aspects of eBay vs. MercExchange, and has the potential to turn the ITC into a forum for patent holdup."

The U.S. government appealed the Court of International Trade’s ruling in Atar, S.r.L. v. United States. On July 31, CIT finally affirmed, on the International Trade Administration’s third try, the ITA’s use of constructed value in calculating antidumping duties for the 2004-05 administrative review of pasta from Italy. Atar's’AD rate fell from 18.18 percent to 11.76 percent as a result. Email documents@brokerpower.com for a copy of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docketing notice.

The Court of International Trade denied without prejudice the government’s motion to amend its complaint in United States v. Active Frontier International because the government didn’t include the actual amended complaint in its motion. CIT had given the government a second chance in its Aug. 30 AFI ruling, where CBP attempted to recover penalties from AFI because of false country of origin markings. CIT said CBP didn’t demonstrate that the false statements were “material” for penalty purposes and denied the government’s penalty claim, but allowed CBP to amend its complaint to demonstrate materiality.

The Court of International Trade proposed changes to the CIT rules, as recommended by CIT’s Advisory Committee on Rules. The changes pertain to Rules 3, 5, 56, 56.2, 65, 73.2, 75, and 81; Forms 5, 11, 14 (new) and 18A (new); Specific Instructions for Forms 11, 14 (new) and 18A (new); Administrative Order 02-01; the Appendix on Access to Business Proprietary Information Pursuant to Rule 73.2(c); and the Standard Chambers Procedures, including new Forms SCP 1, SCP 2, SCP 3 and SCP 4. Comments are due by Nov. 2.

Industrial supply company W. W. Grainger of Illinois agreed to pay a civil penalty of $12,000 to settle charges that it violated the Bureau of Industry and Security antiboycott regulations. Grainger failed to timely report 12 requests to engage in a boycott, BIS said.