News & Analysis as of

Reversal Exports

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

The First Particular Market Situation Determination Falls: Nexteel Co. v. United States Slip Op. 19-1 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2019)...

A new year brings new decisions. In the first opinion issued in 2019 by the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), Judge Choe-Groves addresses the application of a hot-button issue—the U.S. Department of Commerce’s recently...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Your Daily Dose of Financial News

Robins Kaplan LLP on

The Wall Street Journal first reported yesterday that Amazon, fresh from a weekend leak suggesting that Northern Virginia was the HQ2 frontrunner, will choose two locations with an evenly split workforce for its next...more

Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC

Currents - Energy Industry Insights - September 2018 #2

As Storm Looms, 4th Circuit Reverses Ruling Against Dominion on Coal Ash Pollution at Chesapeake Site - "Water pollution from a coal ash landfill and settling ponds at a closed power plant in Chesapeake is not a violation of...more

Butler Snow LLP

Foreign Law in Domestic Lawsuits: Whose Interpretation Takes Precedence?

Butler Snow LLP on

In the products arena, it is not every day that foreign law becomes relevant to a domestic lawsuit. When it does, however, it can create confusion and uncertainty amongst the litigants and the court. Although Federal Rule of...more

Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC

Currents - Energy Industry Insights - August 2018 #4

Activists Have a New Strategy to Block Gas Pipelines: State's Rights - "It already has worked in New York where construction on the Constitution Pipeline has stalled. Now activists are trying the strategy in Oregon." ...more

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

Courts Must Only Offer “Respectful Consideration” to Foreign Governments’ Statements Interpreting Their Laws in Antitrust Cases

On June 14, 2018, in Animal Science Products, Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co., the Supreme Court held that Courts are not obliged to accept statements from a foreign government agency on the meaning and effects of...more

Latham & Watkins LLP

SCOTUS: US Courts Not Bound by Foreign Government’s Statement of Its Laws

Latham & Watkins LLP on

The Supreme Court has ruled US federal courts should carefully consider a foreign government’s interpretation of its own domestic laws, but are not required to give it conclusive effect. Key Points - ..The Supreme...more

King & Spalding

U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Rules Governing Proof of Foreign Law

King & Spalding on

International dispute practitioners are well aware of the challenges that arise when the substance of foreign law is disputed in U.S. courts. Most practitioners are aware that the question is governed by Rule 44.1 of the...more

Jones Day

The Cost of Doing Business: Supreme Court Vacates Chinese Defendants' Antitrust Win

Jones Day on

The Situation: In Animal Science Products, Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co., the defendants in an anticompetition matter—who were China-based manufacturers of vitamin C—claimed that Chinese law required them to...more

Perkins Coie

In Re Vitamin C: Supreme Court Rules Foreign Government’s Statement of Law Not Binding on Federal Courts

Perkins Coie on

In a 9-0 opinion delivered by Justice Ruth Ginsburg, the United States Supreme Court last week ruled that the federal courts are not “bound to accord conclusive effect” to a foreign government’s statement of its own law under...more

Dechert LLP

Supreme Court Rejects Absolute Deference to Foreign Government’s Interpretation of Own Laws

Dechert LLP on

In Animal Science Products v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co., the Supreme Court of the United States held that foreign governments are not entitled to absolute deference on the construction of their own laws. The Court’s...more

Alston & Bird

Unanimous U.S. Supreme Court Limits Deference to Foreign Government Legal Views

Alston & Bird on

Rejecting an earlier appellate case that allowed Chinese companies to escape liability in the United States for allegations of price fixing because their government said it was not illegal under Chinese law, the U.S. Supreme...more

Holland & Knight LLP

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Second Circuit’s Conclusive Reliance on Chinese Interpretation of its Own Law

Holland & Knight LLP on

Is a federal court determining foreign law required to treat as conclusive a submission from a foreign government interpreting its law? The U.S. Supreme Court confronted this question in a case involving price-fixing claims...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Supreme Court Clarifies Principles of International Comity in Vitamin C Ruling

McDermott Will & Emery on

Alert: The Supreme Court clarified the principles of international comity this week in a ruling pertaining to the long-running vitamin C antitrust class action litigation. International comity is the recognition a nation...more

A&O Shearman

Supreme Court: Foreign Government Submissions Are Not Binding on US Courts

A&O Shearman on

On June 14, Justice Ginsberg, writing for a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court, reversed a 2016 opinion by the Second Circuit and held that a foreign government’s interpretation of its own law is not binding on U.S. courts....more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Supreme Court Decides Animal Science Products v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceuticals

On June 14, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Animal Science Products, Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., No. 16-1220, holding that a federal court determining foreign law under Fed. R. Civ. P....more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

WesternGeco v. ION Geophysical Corp. and Lost Profit Damages under § 271(f)

An introduction to § 271 - Section 271 of Title 35 of the United States Code is the statute that codifies unlawful acts of patent infringement. The most commonly asserted provisions are § 271(a) (direct infringement), §...more

Knobbe Martens

Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp.: Supreme Court Limits Patent Infringement Liability for Suppliers Under § 271(f)(1)

Knobbe Martens on

The Supreme Court in Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp held that providing a single component of a multicomponent invention for manufacture abroad does not give rise to patent infringement liability under 35 U.S.C. §...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

One is Not Enough – Infringement Liability under § 271(f)(1)

Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp., Slip Op. 14-1538 (Feb. 22, 2017), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the supply of a single component of a multicomponent invention for manufacture abroad does not give rise to...more

Burr & Forman

Supreme Court Decision Limits Patent Infringement Risk for Exporting a Single Component of a Multi-Component Invention

Burr & Forman on

On February 22, 2017, the Supreme Court held that there is no patent infringement when an entity supplies "a single component" from the United States for combination into "a multicomponent invention" outside the United...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP

Supreme Court Restricts the Extraterritorial Reach of U.S. Patent Law for Exported Goods

On February 22, 2017, the Supreme Court in a landmark decision held that the supply of a single component of a multicomponent invention for manufacture abroad does not give rise to liability under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(1). See...more

Jones Day

Supreme Court Addresses Scope of Patent Infringement Under Section 271(f)(1)

Jones Day on

Section 271(f)(1) of the Patent Act provides that a party infringes a patent claim when it "supplies or causes to be supplied in or from the United States all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention...more

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

"US Supreme Court Holds That Exporting One Component of Invention Abroad Does Not Suffice for Patent Infringement"

In a 7-0 decision issued on February 22, 2017, in Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp., the U.S. Supreme Court held that exporting a single component of a multicomponent invention for combination abroad does not give rise...more

Ladas & Parry LLP

Supreme Court Rules In Life Technologies Corp. V. Promega Corp.

Ladas & Parry LLP on

On February 22, 2017 in Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp, the Supreme Court in a 7-0 judgment (Chief Justice Roberts having recused himself) held that for there to be active inducement of infringement by export of...more

Knobbe Martens

This Year’s Top Ten IP Cases

Knobbe Martens on

#10 Design Patent Damages § 289 - Samsung Elecs. Co., v. Apple Inc., 580 U.S. _ (Dec. 6, 2016) - In the case of a multicomponent product, the relevant article of manufacture for arriving at a damages award under...more

26 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide