Otter Products, LLC v. United States
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15543
| Fed. Cir. | 2016Background
- OtterBox imported two styles of protective smartphone/iPod cases (Commuter and Defender) made of plastic and silicone; Defender includes a removable belt clip and clear membrane.
- U.S. Customs classified the cases as “similar containers” under HTSUS 4202.99.9000 (20% duty); OtterBox paid duties and protested, arguing classification under HTSUS 3926.90.99 (other articles of plastics, 5.3% duty).
- The Court of International Trade granted OtterBox summary judgment, holding the cases are not "similar containers" in Heading 4202 but are classifiable in Heading 3926 as other articles of plastics.
- The government appealed, arguing the trial court improperly narrowed “container,” effectively required all four ejusdem generis characteristics, and impermissibly added a requirement that enclosed items be unusable while contained.
- The Federal Circuit reviewed the classification de novo (no factual dispute) and affirmed the Court of International Trade’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | OtterBox (Plaintiff) Argument | United States (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the cases are "containers" under Heading 4202 | Cases are accessories that fit snuggly over devices and do not function like receptacles | Common meaning of container includes any thing that holds or encloses (cases enclose devices) | Cases are not "containers" in the Heading 4202 sense for classification purposes |
| Whether the cases are "similar containers" (ejusdem generis: organize, store, protect, carry) | Cases only protect (and minimally carry); do not organize or store multiple items; primary purpose inconsistent with exemplars because devices remain fully functional while enclosed | Heading 4202 characteristics are disjunctive; satisfying one characteristic (e.g., protect) suffices | Court: merchandise need not meet all four factors, but must be examined collectively; these cases only meet protection (and minimal carry) and thus are not similar containers |
| Whether the trial court added an unlawful fifth factor (inability to use item while enclosed) | Not a new factor; assessing primary purpose (use while enclosed) is proper to determine inconsistency with exemplars | Trial court impermissibly required that enclosed items be removed for use | Held that examining whether enclosed items remain usable is a legitimate comparison of purposes and did not create a separate fifth factor |
| Proper residual classification if not in Heading 4202 | Classify by material under Chapter 39 | Customs did not contest material-based fallback | Cases fall under HTSUS 3926.90.99 (other articles of plastics) |
Key Cases Cited
- Avenues In Leather, Inc. v. United States, 423 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir.) (ejusdem generis: goods in Heading 4202 share organizing, storing, protecting, and carrying)
- Victoria’s Secret Direct, LLC v. United States, 769 F.3d 1102 (Fed. Cir.) (two-step tariff analysis and identifying common characteristics of a heading)
- Totes, Inc. v. United States, 69 F.3d 495 (Fed. Cir.) (ejusdem generis analysis for "similar containers")
- Cummins Inc. v. United States, 454 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir.) (classification collapses to law when facts undisputed)
- Millenium Lumber Distrib. v. United States, 558 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir.) (standard of review for Court of International Trade summary judgment)