Trade Law

At the end of 2018, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) issued an opinion in One World Techs., Inc. v. United States. In that decision, Judge Choe-Groves concluded that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) improperly excluded from importation one entry of a redesigned garage door opener imported by One World Technologies, Inc. She determined that One World’s redesigned garage door opener did not infringe U.S. Patent 7,161,319, which formed the basis of an exclusion order issued by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1337), because CBP had misconstrued certain claim terms in that patent. In so doing, Judge Choe-Groves construed the claims of the ’319 patent, an exercise rarely undertaken in prior disputes before the CIT. As a result of her conclusion, Judge Choe-Groves issued an injunction preventing CBP from excluding the entry at issue. Our earlier coverage of that decision provides additional details.

From time to time, international trade and patent law matters overlap. We expect to see these interactions in disputes filed pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1337). In other instances, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will cite to a patent-related decision in an opinion that addresses an appeal from the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), leaving members of the international trade bar dazed and confused. Rarely, however, does an action before the CIT mix customs questions with substantive patent issues, such as claim construction and infringement. Enter One World Technologies, Inc. v. United States, a decision authored by Judge Choe-Groves at the end of 2018.