An appeals judge hearing oral arguments in online TV retransmission service FilmOn X’s appeal of a preliminary injunction brought by broadcasters in California suggested that if broadcasters want existing copyright policy changed, they should look to Congress rather than the courts. “In the end, isn’t this really a problem for Congress?” asked Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain in a recording on the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals website. He was speaking to Baker Marquardt attorney Ryan Baker, who represented FilmOn X -- formerly Aereokiller. Broadcasters sought the injunction against FilmOn for retransmitting Los Angeles broadcast TV stations over the Internet without their consent, which the broadcasters said violates copyright law. The injunction was granted in a U.S. District Court in California, but appealed by FilmOn. “So long as we can determine that your client has come within the terms of existing copyright act, that’s enough,” O'Scannlain told Baker Tuesday.
Economic ministers from Mexico, Chile, Peru and Colombia announced on Aug. 26 a preliminary agreement on tariff reduction among the four countries in Pacific Alliance negotiations. The ministers agreed to immediate elimination of tariffs on 92 percent of tariff lines, and staged elimination for the other 8 percent. According to Colombian Minister of Commerce Sergio Diaz-Granados Guida, the agreement on tariffs completes negotiations on the economic prong of the four-country Pacific Alliance accord.
The Commerce Department published notices in the Aug. 27 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 International Trade Commission published notices in the Aug. 26 Federal Register on the following AD/CV injury, Section 337 patent, and other trade proceedings (any notices that warrant a more detailed summary will appear in another ITT article):
The Commerce Department published notices in the Aug. 23 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 issued the final results of the antidumping duty administrative review on wood flooring from China (A-570-970). Despite making changes from its preliminary results, the agency continued to find a zero AD rate for subject merchandise produced by Guangzhou Homebon Timber Manufacturing Co., Ltd. and exported by Power Dekor Group Co., Ltd. As such, Commerce will direct CBP to liquidate period of review entries of merchandise produced by Homebon and exported by Power Dekor without regard to AD duties, and will not collect AD cash deposits on future entries of such merchandise until further notice. Merchandise exported by Power Dekor but not produced by Homebon will continue to enter at the China-wide rate of 58.84%. These final results are effective Aug. 23.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a bid by Ashley Furniture and Ethan Allan for funds under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA, also known as the Byrd Amendment). The two domestic furniture companies argued they were eligible for antidumping and countervailing duties paid under the wooden bedroom furniture from China orders, simply because they responded when the International Trade Commission asked whether they supported the original AD/CVD petitions. Ashley Furniture had answered that it opposed the petition, while Ethan Allan checked the box for “take no position.” According to the two companies, any sort of response qualified as support because it helped the ITC in the investigation. Like the Court of International Trade, the appeals court rejected the argument. Although in a similar case the court had ruled Chez Sidney qualified for CDSOA funds even though it took no position in the final phase questionnaire, that case was different because Chez Sidney checked the box for support of AD/CV duties during the preliminary phase, CAFC said.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed on Aug. 19 the Court of International Trade’s dismissal of an antidumping duty lawsuit on steel nails from China. The lower court had declined to rule on Itochu Building Products’ challenge to the revocation date for four types of nails, citing a failure to fully argue its case before Commerce. Itochu had only argued for an earlier revocation date before the preliminary results of the changed circumstances review, and not in the run-up to the final results, so it didn’t exhaust its administrative remedies, CIT had said (see 12092127). But the appeals court reversed on Aug. 19, because submitting comments after Commerce had already rejected Itochu’s arguments at the preliminary stage would have served no purpose, and actually would have harmed the company.
The International Trade Commission is publishing a notice in the Aug. 19 Federal Register on the following AD/CV injury, Section 337 patent, and other trade proceedings (any notices that warrant a more detailed summary will appear in another ITT article):
A preliminary injunction stopping online TV service FilmOn X from streaming content in Washington, D.C., would undermine innovation, restrict consumer choice and “cripple” FilmOn’s business, said the company -- formerly known as Aereokiller -- in filings in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., Thursday. Broadcaster arguments that FilmOn is hurting negotiations with advertisers and in retransmission consent agreements are “speculative fears of possible revenue consequences,” said one of FilmOn’s filings. “Plaintiffs are not entitled to a presumption of irreparable harm and have not asserted, let alone provided evidence” that FilmOn’s service is hurting their bottom lines, said the company. A similar injunction was granted against FilmOn in California, and is on appeal in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, while broadcasters were denied a preliminary injunction against Aereo in the 2nd Circuit (CD July 17 p6). The D.C. court should grant a “nationwide” injunction against FilmOn, broadcasters said in a motion requesting the ruling. But such a sweeping ruling would prevent courts in the 9th Circuit case against FilmOn and in a similar copyright case brought against Aereo by Hearst in U.S District Court in Boston from issuing their own rulings, argued FilmOn. Instead, the D.C. court should limit the scope of any injunction to FilmOn’s activities within the D.C. Circuit, said FilmOn. A hearing in the D.C. U.S. District case is scheduled for September, and oral arguments in the appeal in the 9th Circuit are set for Thursday.