Trade Law

At the end of last year, World Trade Organization (WTO) members agreed that the 13th Ministerial Conference (MC13) of the WTO will take place in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), in February 2024. There is no doubt that the WTO is facing headwinds and is in need of a vigorous push forward. The UAE’s success in transforming itself into a global trade and digital hub and a leader in services trade could serve to drive a successful outcome at MC13.

International trade litigation requires patience. These disputes often span several years and involve multiple redeterminations by the agency whose action is subject to judicial review. The appeal can get even further complicated when the original proceeding becomes entangled with one or more subsequent administrative proceedings. And even if a party prevails on appeal, a victory may become hollow unless the appropriate agencies implement the redetermination in a timely fashion.

At the end of 2018, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) issued an opinion in One World Techs., Inc. v. United States. In that decision, Judge Choe-Groves concluded that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) improperly excluded from importation one entry of a redesigned garage door opener imported by One World Technologies, Inc. She determined that One World’s redesigned garage door opener did not infringe U.S. Patent 7,161,319, which formed the basis of an exclusion order issued by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1337), because CBP had misconstrued certain claim terms in that patent. In so doing, Judge Choe-Groves construed the claims of the ’319 patent, an exercise rarely undertaken in prior disputes before the CIT. As a result of her conclusion, Judge Choe-Groves issued an injunction preventing CBP from excluding the entry at issue. Our earlier coverage of that decision provides additional details.

The current news coverage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) negotiations has touched heavily on the tight deadlines set around reaching an agreement. There is, however, a lot of unnecessary confusion—even among those who follow this closely—about what might happen next and what deadlines are triggered once an agreement is reached. To help you understand the process and timeline for approval of a free trade agreement, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP has created a TPA Timeline to clarify TPA requirements and timing.

Yesterday morning, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) formally notified Congress that the administration intends to initiate renegotiations with Mexico and Canada on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The administration is required to submit the notice to ensure that any legislation required to implement an updated agreement can receive fast-track protection under the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 (TPA). Under the TPA, the USTR may not enter into formal negotiations until 90 days after this notice is provided to Congress. Thus, NAFTA renegotiations can start on August 16, 2017.

Invoking statutory authority not used in almost two decades, President Trump on April 20, 2017, directed the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) to conduct an investigation into the effects of steel imports on U.S. national security. Citing the more than 150 antidumping and countervailing orders currently in place on steel products imported from various countries, the Presidential Memorandum announcing the investigation claims that U.S. steel producers continue to be harmed by continued unfair trade practices, such as subsidies provided by foreign governments and excess production capacity in producing countries. These systemic trade abuses, according to the Presidential Memorandum, jeopardize long-term investment in the U.S. industry and weaken the pool of qualified workers for this strategic industry.