The International Trade Commission is asking for comments on whether it should keep in place six exclusion orders against decades-old toys and arcade games like Rubik’s Cube and Pac-Man. According to the ITC notice, U.S. Customs and Border Protection says the six import bans “may be candidates for rescission” because of changed conditions. “CBP’s preliminary investigation has indicated that the trademarks or trade dress at issue in the exclusion orders are no longer used in commerce or complainant has stopped making required compliance filings,” says the ITC notice. Under examination are exclusion orders issued in 1979 on novelty drinking glasses (337-TA-055); in 1981 on coin-operated arcade games that infringe trademarks held by Midway; in 1982 on other Midway arcade games, including Rally-X and Pac-Man; in 1982 on cube puzzles, including Rubik’s Cube; in 1989 on strip lights; and in 1990 on novelty teleidoscopes, which are a kind of kaleidoscope that have an open view and are used to create kaleidoscopic patterns from outside objects instead of items in the tube itself. More information on each investigation is available in a spreadsheet kept by the ITC on Section 337 investigations begun before 2008 (here). The ITC is asking for comments on the Section 337 cases, on whether the exclusion orders should be terminated based on changed conditions or the public interest. Comments are due by Dec. 22.
U.S. District Court Judge Alison Nathan granted a nationwide preliminary injunction barring Aereo from streaming broadcast content while it's still being aired by broadcasters, in an order released Thursday (http://bit.ly/1yr2szD). Though broadcasters also had requested that the injunction bar Aereo from offering a time-shifted stream of broadcaster content (see 1410150094), Nathan said that at previous stages of the case and before the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs limited their arguments to content that was being rebroadcast live. “Plaintiffs will be held to their earlier decision, strategic or otherwise, to seek a preliminary injunction limited in scope to enjoining retransmission of their copyrighted works while the works are still being broadcast,” the order said. The judge dismissed Aereo’s arguments that it shouldn’t be enjoined because the Supreme Court’s Aereo decision had classified it as a cable system. “While all cable systems may perform publicly, not all entities that perform publicly are necessarily cable systems, and nothing in the Supreme Court's opinion indicates otherwise,” Nathan said. She said the high court’s decision did not contradict the ivi decision that online video providers aren’t multichannel video programming distributors, and the justices' silence on whether Aereo should get a compulsory copyright license showed that Aereo should not. “Within two weeks of this Opinion and Order, the parties shall submit a joint letter outlining how the case should proceed,” Nathan said. “In light of the extensive discovery period that has already taken place, this Court intends to set a rapid schedule for the completion of discovery, so that the case may proceed expeditiously to the final merits stage.”
A suspension agreement to end the U.S.-Mexico sugar dumping dispute must ensure Mexican exporters are still able to supply a steady and stable amount of sugar to the U.S. market, said John Herrmann of Kelly Drye, counsel for the Sweetener Users Association (SUA), on an Oct. 23 conference call organized by the National Foreign Trade Council. The Commerce Department is expected to impose duties in its preliminary antidumping determination set for Oct. 27, said Herrmann. The agency most recently said it would release the determination on Oct. 24 (see 14082014).
U.S. District Court Judge Alison Nathan granted a nationwide preliminary injunction barring Aereo from streaming broadcast content while it's still being aired by broadcasters, in an order released Thursday (http://bit.ly/1yr2szD). Though broadcasters also had requested that the injunction bar Aereo from offering a time-shifted stream of broadcaster content (see 1410150094), Nathan said that at previous stages of the case and before the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs limited their arguments to content that was being rebroadcast live. “Plaintiffs will be held to their earlier decision, strategic or otherwise, to seek a preliminary injunction limited in scope to enjoining retransmission of their copyrighted works while the works are still being broadcast,” the order said. The judge dismissed Aereo’s arguments that it shouldn’t be enjoined because the Supreme Court’s Aereo decision had classified it as a cable system. “While all cable systems may perform publicly, not all entities that perform publicly are necessarily cable systems, and nothing in the Supreme Court's opinion indicates otherwise,” Nathan said. She said the high court’s decision did not contradict the ivi decision that online video providers aren’t multichannel video programming distributors, and the justices' silence on whether Aereo should get a compulsory copyright license showed that Aereo should not. “Within two weeks of this Opinion and Order, the parties shall submit a joint letter outlining how the case should proceed,” Nathan said. “In light of the extensive discovery period that has already taken place, this Court intends to set a rapid schedule for the completion of discovery, so that the case may proceed expeditiously to the final merits stage.”
U.S. District Court Judge Alison Nathan granted a nationwide preliminary injunction barring Aereo from streaming broadcast content while it's still being aired by broadcasters, in an order released Thursday (http://bit.ly/1yr2szD). Though broadcasters also had requested that the injunction bar Aereo from offering a time-shifted stream of broadcaster content (see 1410150094), Nathan said that at previous stages of the case and before the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs limited their arguments to content that was being rebroadcast live. “Plaintiffs will be held to their earlier decision, strategic or otherwise, to seek a preliminary injunction limited in scope to enjoining retransmission of their copyrighted works while the works are still being broadcast,” the order said. The judge dismissed Aereo’s arguments that it shouldn’t be enjoined because the Supreme Court’s Aereo decision had classified it as a cable system. “While all cable systems may perform publicly, not all entities that perform publicly are necessarily cable systems, and nothing in the Supreme Court's opinion indicates otherwise,” Nathan said. She said the high court’s decision did not contradict the ivi decision that online video providers aren’t multichannel video programming distributors, and the justices' silence on whether Aereo should get a compulsory copyright license showed that Aereo should not. “Within two weeks of this Opinion and Order, the parties shall submit a joint letter outlining how the case should proceed,” Nathan said. “In light of the extensive discovery period that has already taken place, this Court intends to set a rapid schedule for the completion of discovery, so that the case may proceed expeditiously to the final merits stage.”
The International Trade Commission published notices in the Oct. 23 Federal Register on the following AD/CV injury, Section 337 patent, and other trade proceedings (any notices that warrant a more detailed summary will be in another ITT article):
The Commerce Department published notices in the Oct. 22 Federal Register on the following AD/CV duty 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 Commerce Department is postponing until Dec. 17 its preliminary determinations in the antidumping duty investigations on steel nails from South Korea, Malaysia, Oman, Taiwan and Vietnam (A-580-874, A-557-816, A-523-808, A-583-854, and A-552-818). The agency’s preliminary findings were originally due Nov. 5, but Commerce says the domestic company that requested the investigations asked for an extension to allow for more time to review information and request more information if necessary. Cash deposits of estimated AD duties may be required beginning on the date of Commerce’s preliminary determination, and in certain circumstances cash deposit requirements may be made retroactive 90 days before the agency’s preliminary finding.
The Commerce Department issued the final results of the antidumping duty administrative review on stainless steel bar from Spain (A-469-805). Commerce determined the only company under review, Gerdau Aceros Especiales Europa, S.L., did not undersell subject merchandise during the period of review, assigning the company a zero percent AD duty rate. Subject merchandise from Gerdau entered between March 1, 2012 and Feb. 28, 2013 will be liquidated without any assessment of AD duties, and future entries of stainless steel bar exported from Spain by Gerdau will not be subject to AD duty cash deposit requirements until further notice. These final results take effect Oct. 22.
The Commerce Department published notices in the Oct. 20 Federal Register on the following AD/CV duty proceedings (any notices that announce changes to AD/CV duty rates, scope, affected firms, or effective dates will be detailed in another ITT article):