ERICSSON GE MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., and Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. and Murata Erie North America, Inc., and Matsushita Electric Corp. of America and Matsushita Communications Industrial Corp. of America, and OKI Electric Industry Co., Ltd., and Mitsubishi Electric Corp. and Mitsubishi Consumer Electronics America, Inc., and TDK Corp. and TDK Corp. of America, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
The UNITED STATES, Defendant,
and
Motorola, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
June 27, 1995.
As Amended September 1, 1995.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, New York City, and Michael T. Shor, Arnold & Porter, Washington, DC, argued, for plaintiffs-appellees. With Shor on the brief were Richard A. Johnson and Susan Morita. Also on the brief were Gail T. Cumins, Sharetts, Paley, Carter & Blauvelt, P.C., New York City, for plaintiffs-appellees, Ericsson GE Mobile Communications, Inc., Ronald I. Meltzer, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, Washington, DC, for plaintiffs-appellees, OKI Electric Industry Co., Ltd., Benjamin Thomas Peel, III, Baker & McKenzie, Washington, DC, for plaintiffs-appellees, Mitsubishi Electric Corp. and Mitsubishi Consumer Electronics America, Inc., Robert F. Seely, Mark S. Zolno, Katten, Muchin & Zavis, Chicago, IL, for plaintiffs-appellees, TDK Corp. and TDK Corp. of America. Robert C. Cassidy, Jr., Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, Washington, DC, for OKI Electric Industry Co., Ltd.
Harvey M. Applebaum, Covington & Burling, Washington, DC, argued, for defendant-appellant. With him on the brief were David R. Grace and Mark F. Kightlinger. Also on the brief was Timothy A. Harr, Motorola, Inc., Washington, DC. A. David Lafer and David M. Cohen, Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant, U.S.
Before ARCHER, Chief Judge, LOURIE and BRYSON, Circuit Judges.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
BRYSON, Circuit Judge.
The issue in this case is a narrow one: whether the Commerce Department properly interpreted and applied one of its antidumping duty orders to a particular set of products. At the request of an importer of electronic components, the Commerce Department in 1991 reviewed 11 of the importer's products to determine whether they were within the scope of a 1985 antidumping duty order covering cellular mobile telephones and subassemblies. The Department...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
