37 F. Supp. 3d 1306
Ct. Int'l Trade2014Background
- Otter moves for a preliminary injunction to bar Customs from enforcing the ITC GEO against Otter's Symmetry products.
- ITC issued a GEO covering claims of the '561 patent; the GEO became final on August 20, 2014.
- Otter sought relief after Customs began denying or redelivering imports and after various ITC/Federal Circuit actions related to the '561 patent.
- Otter filed protests and requests to stay enforcement; the court granted a TRO but later dissolved it.
- Court resolves jurisdiction before merits and concludes Otter lacks § 1581(i) or § 1581(h) basis for relief, leading to dismissal of those aspects and denial of the injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction under § 1581(i). | Otter claims residual jurisdiction is available due to inadequacy of other avenues. | Government contends § 1581(i) cannot bypass § 1581(a) procedures. | No jurisdiction under § 1581(i); § 1581(a) remedies are not manifestly inadequate. |
| Whether the court has jurisdiction under § 1581(h) for pre-importation review. | Otter seeks pre-importation relief to prevent exclusion of its imports. | § 1581(h) requires irreparable harm prior to importation and precludes reliance on mere delays. | No live controversy or irreparable harm shown to warrant § 1581(h) review; moot as to § 1581(h). |
| Whether Otter demonstrated irreparable harm to warrant a preliminary injunction. | Otter asserts lost sales, goodwill damage, and customer relationships during the holiday season. | Harm shown is not irreparable given available remedies and lack of concrete evidence. | Otter failed to show immediate, irreparable harm; injunctive relief denied and TRO dissolved. |
| Whether Speck’s motion to appear as amicus curiae should be granted. | Speck seeks a role beyond amicus curiae. | Statutory limits bar party intervention in § 1581(a) cases. | Speck’s motion denied; its role as amicus curtailed; matter deemed moot insofar as § 1581(h) relief is concerned. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (preliminary injunction standard; extraordinary remedy)
- Qingdao Taifa Grp. Co. v. United States, 581 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (centrality of irreparable harm and sliding-scale analysis)
- Am. Frozen Food Inst., Inc. v. United States, 18 CIT 565, 855 F. Supp. 388 (1994) (irreparable harm standard and protest-venue considerations)
- Inner Secrets/Secretly Yours, Inc. v. United States, 18 CIT 1028, 869 F. Supp. 959 (1994) (review of protest procedures; manifest inadequacy analysis)
- Int'l Custom Prods., Inc. v. United States, 467 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (example of when protest process may be futile but not here)
- Connor v. United States, 24 CIT 195, 200 (2000) (§ 1581(h) irreparable harm standard and jurisdictional thresholds)