Globe showing Asia

On Friday, June 15, 2018, President Trump announced that the US would be imposing a 25% tariff on Chinese technology imports. The tariffs were originally proposed on March 22, 2018 as a result of a Section 301 investigation of China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation. See our original post here.

Tariffs will be imposed on certain products starting on July 6, 2018.  Those products are listed here and consist of a subset of the products proposed on March 22.  Continue Reading President Trump Announces Tariffs on Chinese Technology Imports

As a result of the Steel and Aluminum tariffs announced by President Trump in March 2018, and amended with proclamations issued on May 1, 2018, and June 1, 2018, several trading partners have decided that reciprocal and retaliatory tariffs on U.S. products are appropriate.  To date, the following countries have decided to retaliate – Canada, China, the European Union, India, and Mexico. See the comprehensive list of retaliatory tariffs here.

Continue Reading Comprehensive List of Retaliatory Tariffs

Nowadays, the only thing that remains certain in the industry of domestic and global trade is the unpredictability of influential decisions made by the U.S. government and how those decisions will impact trading laws and regulations.

There has been much to say regarding Section 232 and related tariff concerns. On Husch Blackwell’s TMT Industry Insider you can find several blog posts we’ve published regarding these hot-button topics.

Additionally, Husch Blackwell is pleased to offer complimentary passes to the first 30 registrants for a very timely upcoming webinar: Trump’s Steel and Aluminum Tariffs: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.

The webinar will focus on Trump’s steel and aluminum tariffs and provide insight on what lies ahead. It will be hosted on The Knowledge Group and will take place on Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 12:00 p.m.-1:00 p.m. (ET) The webinar is led by Husch Blackwell Partner, Nithya Nagarajan and John Peterson, Partner at Neville Peterson LLP.

Register here.

 

Globe showing Asia

On June 7, 2018, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross announced that Chinese Telecommunications companies, Zhongxing Telecommunications Equipment Corporation of Shenzen, China and ZTE Kangxun Telecommunications Ltd. of Hi-New Shenzhen, China (collectively “ZTE”) have agreed to pay $1 billion and place an additional $400 million in suspended penalty money in escrow in order to be removed from the Denied Persons List.  This penalty payment is in addition to the over $850 million in penalties that ZTE already previously paid to multiple U.S. government agencies in March of 2017 when it first entered into a settlement agreement arising out of its illegal re-exportation of controlled U.S. origin telecommunications equipment to Iran and other prohibited destinations. Continue Reading Commerce Strikes Deal with Chinese Telecom Company ZTE with Largest Fine and Strictest BIS Compliance Measures to Date

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross announced on Thursday, May 31st that a 25 percent tariff on steel and a 10 percent tariff on aluminum will go into effect at midnight on May 31 on imports from Canada, Mexico, and the European Union. Those countries had previously been granted temporary exemptions from the initial tariffs announced in March as a result of investigations under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. According to Secretary Ross, while discussions with the European Union were ongoing, the progress did not warrant another temporary exemption. Additionally, this announcement comes in the middle of the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”) re-negotiations with Canada and Mexico. Ross stated that those talks have taken longer than expected and there is no precise end date in sight. Continue Reading Tariffs to Be Imposed on Imported Steel and Aluminum from the EU, Canada, and Mexico

droneThe U. S. Department of Transportation (“USDOT”) announced a diverse set of winners for the 10 openings in USDOT’s Unmanned Aircraft Systems (“UAS”) Integration Pilot Program (“IPP”). As advertised, the program’s selectees consist of state, local and tribal governments (“Selectees”) that will partner with private sector entities to accelerate UAS integration into the national airspace system. Continue Reading USDOT Selects Ten Drone Integration Sites

Container ShipOn May 22, 2018, Worthington Industries and Manchester Tank & Equipment Co. filed a petition for the imposition of antidumping and countervailing duties on imports of Steel Propane Cylinders from the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan, and Thailand. Continue Reading Petition Summary: Steel Propane Cylinders From China, Taiwan, and Thailand

courtThis week, the Federal Circuit resolved three issues left in TC Heartland’s wake. TC Heartland held that 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) uniquely governs venue in patent cases and is not coterminous with the scope of § 1391. The first prong of § 1400(b) creates venue in the judicial district where the defendant resides, which the Supreme Court held to be the state of incorporation for a domestic corporation. But, this begs the question: what about when the state has multiple judicial districts? Also, whose law governs burden under § 1400(b), and where does that burden lie? In the year after TC Heartland, district courts across the country split on these issues. Continue Reading Updates in the Federal Circuit Following TC Heartland

Toxic Tort Monitor

 

May 15, 2018 | Editor: Jen Dlugosz | Assistant Editors: Anne McLeod and Natalie Holden
New Developments
Order of Operations: Maryland’s Highest Court Analysis of the Statute of Repose and Discovery Rule’s Applicability to Asbestos Cases
By Soham Desai

On March 28, 2018, the Court of Appeals of Maryland, Maryland’s highest court, was asked to: (1) determine whether the state’s statute of repose was ambiguous as to when an injury and cause of action “arise” within the scope of the statute and, (2) discuss the applicability of the discovery rule in relation to the manifestation of a latent disease. The Court found that, in a case involving a steamfitter’s alleged asbestos exposure, the plaintiff’s claims were not barred as the date of his last exposure to asbestos containing products determined whether the statute of repose applied. [Continue Reading]

Pennsylvania Court Finds That an Employer’s Take-Home Duty Can Extend to Girlfriends of Former Employees
By Sarah Rashid

A Pennsylvania District Court recently denied a defendant’s motion for summary judgment of the issue of duty, finding that that an employer’s take home duty may in certain situations extend to the girlfriend of a former employee. Plaintiff Brenda Schwartz and her husband, Paul Schwartz (“Plaintiffs”), brought a negligence action against Defendant Accuratus Corporation (“Defendant”), alleging that Mrs. Schwartz had contracted chronic beryllium disease (“CBD”) from exposure to beryllium brought home on Mr. Schwartz’s clothes while he was an employee of Defendant. Mrs. Schwartz also claims exposure to beryllium from Mr. Schwartz’s roommate, Gregory Altemose, who was also an employee of Defendant. [Continue Reading]

District Court in Washington Reverses Course on Personal Jurisdiction?
By Jackson Otto

In recent years federal courts have clarified and narrowed the scope of personal jurisdiction as it applies to nonresident defendants, particularly in mass tort and toxic exposure cases. However, a recent decision coming out of Washington appears to buck this trend. In Donald Varney and Maria Varney v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, et al., the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington had an opportunity to decide motions brought by Defendants Taco, Inc. and Aurora Pump Company to dismiss for failure to state a claim, for lack of standing, to strike Plaintiffs’ request for pre-judgment interest, and most notably for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Court denied each of the Defendants’ motions. [Continue Reading]

Toxic Tort Monitor Archive
April 2018

Read the full Toxic Tort Monitor Archive

Connect with us: Blog | Twitter | LinkedIn | Instagram | YouTube
Technology, Manufacturing & Transportation
Toxic Tort Litigation Practice

Companies face increasingly well‐coordinated attacks in jurisdictions across the country. These assaults are becoming more complex and costly as plaintiffs’ counsel pursue novel theories and claims to keep asbestos litigation thriving. Husch Blackwell’s team has experience in numerous jurisdictions throughout 37 states. Our attorneys can help you navigate the intricate web of plaintiffs’ firms, changing laws, evolving science and anti-defendant courts. [More information]

Congress’ passage of the America Invents Act (AIA) in 2011 created a new process for challenging the validity of issued patents. This new process is filed with the very governmental agency that originally issued the patent. Called Inter Partes Review (IPR), hundreds of issued patents have been invalidated, in whole or in part, using the new proceeding. On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court handed down two decisions directly relating to IPRs. In the first, it upheld the IPR process as constitutional. In the second, it provided additional direction to the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”), which oversees and decides IPRs. Continue Reading Supreme Court Rules on Two Cases involving Inter Partes Review