EchoStar appealed the U.S. Court of International Trade decision upholding denial by Customs and Border Protection of more than $276,000 in drawback claims from a video technology importer and exporter as untimely. The CIT said in June (see 1906180069) the date of filing was when a complete paper claim was submitted, not the electronic summary. The appellant/petitioner's brief is due Oct. 21, said docket 19-2299 for EchoStar v. U.S. in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. As of Friday, beyond a docketing notice (in Pacer), no additional documents were in that docket (in Pacer).
Court of International Trade activity
ASPEN, Colo. -- DOJ likes its chances of prevailing with its structural remedies on T-Mobile's buy of Sprint and a divestiture to Dish Network, said Antitrust Division head Makan Delrahim in an interview after a Technology Policy Institute Q&A. About a dozen states sued to block the deal. Also at TPI, Delrahim confirmed his department and several states are probing tech issues. He wouldn't object to a look by others at Communications Decency Act Section 230.
Mobile wallet solutions provider Dynamics seeks an import ban on Samsung smartphones with the Samsung Pay feature, it said in a Section 337 complaint filed with the International Trade Commission. Dynamics says the Samsung mobile devices, which include the Galaxy S8, S9 and S10, copy its patented technology for magnetic multifunction emulators and near-field communication technology for executing financial payment transactions. Dynamics asked the ITC to issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist order banning import and sale of infringing Samsung devices. Samsung hatched a scheme at January 2012 CES to steal the trade secrets of Dynamics and embed the stolen technology in at least 10 models of Galaxy smartphones since the S8, alleged Dynamics in a July 12 complaint (in Pacer) in U.S. District Court in Manhattan (see 1907120024).
The Court of International Trade upheld Customs and Border Protection denial Monday of EchoStar’s drawback claims as untimely. EchoStar filed the claims for duty refunds worth $276,275.12 in 2014 and early 2015, before new drawback procedures under the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act, including fully electronic filing, took effect. EchoStar transmitted its filing via the automated broker interface within the three-year deadline, but its paper claim, including CBP Form 7551 and supporting documentation, was filed too late, causing CBP to reject the claims. “CBP is ultimately not responsible for EchoStar’s failure to timely file complete drawback claims because of either the Guidance or CBP’s ‘late’ notice to EchoStar to provide additional documents,” said CIT, referring to guidance documents that EchoStar believed meant no paper documentation was necessary. The company had no immediate comment Tuesday.
Plaintiffs made initial arguments at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which will hear challenges to the FCC’s wireless infrastructure changes that were aimed at speeding build out of small cells and 5G. Court watchers said what the 9th Circuit will do is difficult to predict, though it may prove unfriendly to President Donald Trump’s FCC.
The fight over banning Huawei from U.S. 5G networks intensified Wednesday. Huawei asked for summary judgment in a federal court in the Eastern District of Texas on the constitutionality of parts of the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Robert Strayer, a State Department official, told an American Enterprise Institute forum the risk from Chinese companies is real and can't be eliminated if they're part of a 5G network. President Donald Trump said last week sanctions against Huawei could be part of trade negotiations with China (see 1905240038).
It’s possible for the FTC to conduct multiple Section 6(b) studies at once, a spokesperson said Friday, noting it’s been done in the past.
Qualcomm praised a U.S. trade judge’s decision Tuesday that certain iPhones violated one of its patents, but disputed another, said General Counsel Don Rosenberg. International Trade Commission Administrative Law Judge MaryJoan McNamara made an initial determination that Apple violated Section 337 of the Tariff Act in importing “certain mobile electronic devices containing processing components” and will recommend limited exclusion and cease and desist orders against Apple. Final determination is expected by July 26. “We are pleased that today ITC Judge McNamara found that Apple-designed processors infringe our ‘674 patent and will be recommending an import ban and cease and desist order to the Commission,” said Rosenberg. “The innovations we contribute to the iPhone extend well beyond a single component and Judge McNamara’s decision, along with recent infringement rulings in other U.S. and foreign courts, affirm the value of our technologies.” The patent, No. 8,063,674, improves power management in processor circuitry to reduce power consumption and improve battery life in mobile devices, said Rosenberg. Qualcomm accused circuitry in the Apple-designed A10, A11 and A12 application processors used widely in Apple devices, including in iPhones from the 7 through the most recently released models, he said. Also Tuesday, the ITC issued a determination not to review infringement complaints for six other Qualcomm patents. That's "inconsistent with the recent unanimous jury verdict finding infringement of the same patent after Apple abandoned its invalidity defense at the end of trial,” said Rosenberg. Qualcomm will seek reconsideration. Rosenberg said courts in China and Germany recently ruled that Apple infringed other Qualcomm nonstandard essential patents and issued injunctions on infringing devices. Apple didn’t comment Wednesday.
Plastic iPad 2 “Smart Cover” cases are classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule as articles of plastic dutiable at 5.4 percent, not as duty-free accessories for automatic data processing machines, said the Court of International Trade in a decision made public Tuesday. Apple argued for the case’s duty-free classification as an accessory because it also functions as a stand. But the court agreed with a Customs and Border Protection ruling that the cases are explicitly excluded from that classification. Apple didn’t comment.
Chinese telecom equipment manufacturer Huawei sued the U.S. government Wednesday over language in the FY 2019 National Defense Authorization Act that bars U.S. agencies from using “risky” technology produced by the company or fellow Chinese firm ZTE. The lawsuit itself didn't come up during a Thursday-Senate Commerce Security Subcommittee hearing on security implications of China's market activities. Members repeatedly returned to concerns about Huawei and major tech sector issues, including the U.S. race against China to dominate 5G.