DOJ Argument Ignores Conflicting Quotes From Case Law, Vehicle Side Bar Exporter Says
An exporter of vehicle side bars said the U.S. is wrongly relying on a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit patent case to convince the trade court to rule against that exporter (Keystone Automotive Operations v. U.S., CIT # 21-00215).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Exporter Keystone Automotive Operations, which is challenging the classification of its side bar exports as “side steps” rather than its preferred provision for “side protective attachments” (see 2404100071), filed a sur-reply June 14 in response to the U.S.’s reply in further support of its cross-motion for summary judgment amid a wordy ongoing case (see 2405290069).
In the reply, Keystone took issue with the government's reliance on the 2003 CAFC case Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., a case it noted the U.S. hadn’t “previously discussed in its filings with the Court or related materials.” It said that case involved a defendant's infringement of patents for a robotic surgery system, which “has no bearing” on its own classification dispute.
The exporter said the government failed to provide important context when quoting from the patent case, calling its use of specific language “calculated” and saying it omitted "the remainder of the descriptive language in the patents.”
The U.S. drew language from the patent case “highlighting the functionality of entry into a vehicle’s passenger compartment,” Keystone said. However, it didn’t include some of the case’s other quotes, such as one that noted “[t]he side bar is both an appearance accessory and provides some protection for door and side of the vehicle cab to deflect debris” and another that said a “[s]ide bar functions as a protective guard for the exterior side surface of vehicle.”
In its reply in further support of its cross-motion for judgment, the government -- for the first time -- used the Oxford Languages dictionary definition of an “attachment” as “an extra part or extension that is or can be attached to something to perform a particular function,” Keystone said.
However, that "definition has no bearing on Plaintiff’s or Defendant’s arguments presented to date,” Keystone said. It added that its bars served both as vehicle protective equipment and as a step to assist entry into the vehicle.