Ruling Clears Way for Safeguard Consideration

May 2005
Home Textiles Today;5/2/2005, Vol. 26 Issue 33, p2
Trade Publication
Reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has lifted an injunction issued by the by the Court of International Trade that has prevented the government from ruling on twelve threat-based China-safeguard petitions filed by textiles industry trade groups.


Related Articles

  • Vonage reprieve.  // Network World;4/30/2007, Vol. 24 Issue 17, p4 

    The article reports that the Vonage Holdings Corp. has received a permanent stay of injunction from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. The company sought the stay following a decision by the District Court of Virginia, enjoining the company from using...

  • Fast-Forward: Federal Circuit Makes It Easier to Enforce Injunctions in Patent Cases. Seidenberg, Steven // ABA Journal;Aug2011, Vol. 97 Issue 8, p25 

    The article offers information on the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a case titled 'TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp.' on patent related issues. It is mentioned that the decision has made the process of filing law suits easier, against those who violate an injunction....

  • False Filings. Seidenberg, Steven // InsideCounsel;Apr2011, Vol. 22 Issue 232, p22 

    The article talks about lawsuits that are being filed against companies in the U.S. for marking their products with inaccurate or expired patent numbers, which is said to violate the false patent marking statute. It places emphasis on pending decision in FLFMC LLC v. Wham-O Inc. which is...

  • No Patent for Like-Kind Investment Strategy.  // Federal Tax Course Letter;May2012, Vol. 26 Issue 5, p7 

    The article discusses a court case Fort Properties, Inc. vs. American Master Lease LLC in the U.S. It is stated that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected a taxpayer's attempt to patent like-kind investment strategy. The Federal Circuit held that like-kind exchanges was an...

  • No Physical Invasion Necessary For Railroad Easement Takings Claim.  // Land Use Law Report;2011, Vol. 39 Issue 1, p3 

    The article discusses a court case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that no actual physical invasion is required for a takings claim to accrue when a Notice of Interim Trail Use of Abandonment is issued. In Ladd v. United States, several landowners in Arizona...

  • Vonage Wins Stay, Launches PR Counterattack. Scoblete, Greg // TWICE: This Week in Consumer Electronics;5/7/2007, Vol. 22 Issue 10, p33 

    The article reports that voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) provider Vonage was allowed by a U.S. Federal Circuit court to recruit new customers despite its court case with Verizon. According to the author, the Court of Appeals judge gave Vonage a permanent stay of a previous injunction that...

  • FORUM SHOPPING AND VENUE TRANSFER IN PATENT CASES: MARSHALL'S RESPONSE TO TS TECH AND GENENTECH. Offin-Brown, Elizabeth P. // Berkeley Technology Law Journal;2010 Annual Review, Vol. 25 Issue 1, p61 

    The article discusses a court case in which U.S. Federal Circuit issued a ruling granting a writ of mandamus for venue transfer out of the Eastern District of Texas. The federal court explains the venue transfer rules, introduces the concept of forum shopping between the fedral district courts...

  • PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND PERSONAL JURISDICTION.  // Berkeley Technology Law Journal;2010 Annual Review, Vol. 25 Issue 1, p210 

    The article discusses two court cases informing U.S. Federal Circuit's decision regarding jurisdiction in patent infringement. It informs about Medical Solutions (MSI), Inc. v. C. Chang Surgical (CCS) LLC case in which district court rejected MSI's argument stating that MSI failed to make a...

  • Boston Sci prevails against J&J in stent suit.  // Medical Device Daily;9/30/2011, Vol. 15 Issue 187, p2 

    The article discusses a court case wherein the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in favor of Boston Scientific in a 1998 patent infringement lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson.


Read the Article


Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics