Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
- The CIT is looking closely at pleadings and is amenable to Rule 12(b)(5) motions to dismiss
- Late responses and unfair results do not constitute a lack of due process
- The APA neither trumps nor complements the existing scheme for judicial review of protestable decision.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
The changes proposed in this document are intended to conform CBP's recordkeeping requirements to reflect modern business practices whereby documents are often generated, stored and transmitted in an electronic format. The proposed changes serve to remove duplicative recordkeeping requirements and streamline recordkeeping procedures for brokers who maintain electronic recordkeeping systems without compromising the agency's ability to monitor and enforce recordkeeping compliance.Comments are due May 24, an auspicious date as it is my birthday.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Saturday, March 06, 2010
Today I kicked an old computer to the curb. Actually, I boxed it up and left it on my front step as a donation to a charity that collects old computers for schools. I started thinking that it would be cool to have all my old computers in a collection. I know there are virtual museums of obsolete computers, so I hereby create my virtual collection of my old computers.
Friday, March 05, 2010
8528 Monitors and projectors, not incorporating television (con.) reception apparatus; reception apparatus for television, whether or not incorporating radio-broadcast receivers or sound or video recording or reproducing apparatus (con.):
8528.51.00 00 Of a kind solely or principally used in an automatic data processing system of heading 8471 . . . . . Free
Thursday, March 04, 2010
To remind my faithful (and often retired) readers that I am still here and still looking out for their best interests, I offer this off topic post. Basically, it is a link to the blog post by Gary Odom on Patent Prospector. In the post, Odom dissects a Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision involving the patentability of baseball cards that incorporate a small piece of "game worn" jersey. Cool idea, but was it obvious? If so, the Patent and Trademark Office never should have granted a patent on it.
Patent law is interesting to me and it is made doubly so because the patent bar and the customs bar share the same appellate body--the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Customs and trade cases only make up about 5% of the Court's docket. The majority of the remainder is patent appeals. On those occasions I when I have argued at the Federal Circuit, I invariably seem to be at the end of the session after two patent cases (or a patent case and a federal merit selection case). Recently, it was put to me by someone who should know that Federal Circuit jurisprudence in customs classification cases has been impacted by the patent work that takes up so much of the Court's time and effort. I gather that relates to the fact that reading the claims of a patent might be similar to piecing together a classification based on the various General Rules of Interpretation, legal notes, and heading language. But, I am not certain I see the connection.
Anyway, the Patent Prospector post is worth reading. Also, the comments are quite full of interesting opinions.