Mediaboss Marketing

The smartphone maker is the latest Chinese company butting heads with the US over claims of ties to Beijing.

Chinese smartphone maker Xiaomi is suing the US over its inclusion on a blacklist of Chinese companies.

Xiaomi, which is one of the worlds largest smartphone makers, was last month placed on a record of companies that the US deemed to have links to the Chinese military a claim the company denies.

This bars American investors from holding shares in the company, subject to an executive order signed by former US president Donald Trump in November. Nine other companies were designated as Communist Chinese military companies or CCMCs.

In its lawsuit filed last Friday (29 January) against the US Department of Defense and the US Treasury, Xiaomi said Trumps designation was unlawful and presented no evidence.

[By] failing to provide Xiaomi with notice of, or an opportunity to challenge, the basis for the designation, defendants have deprived Xiaomi of due process of law, in violation of the Fifth Amendment, the lawsuit said.

Defendants designation of Xiaomi as a CCMC is arbitrary and capricious because, among other things, defendants failed to articulate a reasonable explanation for their decision.

Xiaomi claimed that the designation will damage the companys ability to raise funds, sell products, and attract and retain US employees as some may hold shares in the company.

Under the order, US investors will no longer be able to buy shares in Xiaomi, which is listed in Hong Kong, from March of this year and existing shareholders must divest by January 2022.

The company denied that is owned or controlled by, or otherwise affiliated with the Chinese government or military.

The tiff between Xiaomi and the US bears similarities to the long-running feud between the US and Huawei. The Chinese telecoms equipment maker repeatedly denied allegations by the Trump administration that it is linked to Beijing and is a national security threat.

While Trump has left office, there are no immediate signs of the US-China tech tensions abating just yet. The Biden administrations nominee for commerce secretary, Gina Raimondo, said she would protect US telecom networks from Chinese companies but stopped short of committing to retaining Huawei on blacklists. She is expected to be voted in on Wednesday.

See the article here:
Xiaomi sues the US government over military blacklisting Just now - Siliconrepublic.com

On January 27, 2021, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) issued an opinion in which it dismissed all but one claim challenging on various grounds a proclamation by former President Donald Trump (Proclamation 9980) that imposed 25% tariffs on, inter alia, various imported products made of steel pursuant to Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. However, the CIT will continue to consider the claim that President Trump implemented additional and new duties on certain steel derivative products after the statutory time period for such action had lapsed.

PrimeSource Building Products, Inc., a U.S. importer of various steel derivative products, filed a complaint (subsequently amended) in the CIT on February 4, 2020, arguing that President Trumps Proclamation 9980 was unlawful and unconstitutional. See Update of February 14, 2020. On March 20, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the new tariffs did not violate the Section 232 procedural requirements or PrimeSources right to due process. See Update of March 31, 2020.

In its January 27, 2021 order, the CIT dismissed PrimeSources claims that: (i) the imposition of Section 232 duties on the derivative products was procedurally deficient; (ii) the secretary of commerce violated all of the Section 232 statutory provisions; (iii) PrimeSource was deprived of its Fifth Amendment due process constitutional rights; and (iv) Section 232 is unconstitutional as it unlawfully delegates legislative authority from Congress to the president.

The CIT did not dismiss PrimeSources claim that Proclamation 9980 was issued 638 days after the transmittal of the Section 232 steel investigation report to the president (well after the 105 days set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1862(c)(1)) and is thus null and void. Despite DOJ arguing that the president has the authority to modify Section 232 tariffs at any time to protect national security (including adjusting imports of articles not addressed in Proclamation 9705 that the president designated as derivatives of identified steel articles), the CIT found that this claim rests upon a plain meaning interpretation of the statute. The opinion states that DOJs flexible reading of [19 U.S.C. 1862(c)(1)] would require us to interpret the action taken by Proclamation 9980 and that taken by Proclamation 9705 as parts of the same action, which presents several interpretive problems. The opinion concludes that there is no flexible reading of [19 U.S.C. 1862(c)(1)] Section 232(c)(1) that suffices to allow the President to adjust, through new tariffs, imports of derivatives of previously-affected articles outside of the time limits Congress imposed, and the appellate decisions on which defendants rely do not lend support to any such reading.

The parties now have until February 26, 2021, to file a joint schedule that will govern the briefing and hearing schedule for the remaining unresolved factual issues of this claim.

Originally posted here:
CIT Dismisses All but One Claim in Section 232 Steel Tariff Dispute - Lexology

At the beginning of 2020 the Supreme Court appeared poised to take on multiple patent cases, but a series ofcertdenials resulted in only one decision from the High Court in 2020. The Supreme Court avoided entering the Section 101 debate by denyingcertiorarifor a number relevant patent cases includingAthena Diagnostics Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC,No. 19-430 (2020) (IP Update, Vol. 22, No. 2) andChamberlain Group, Inc. v. One World Techs., Inc., No. 19-1299 (2019) (IP Update, Jan. 2020). The Court also deniedcertin various cases relating to whether the America Invents Act (AIA) violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, includingCollabo Innovations v. Sony Corp.No. 19-601 (2019) (IP Law Year in Review 2019).

The only patent decision to come from the Supreme Court in 2020 wasThryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Techs., LP, 590 US ___ (2020), in which the Court held that 35 USC 314(d) precludes judicial review of the Patent Trial and Appeals Boards (PTAB)application of 315(b)s one-year time bar. The Court largely reiterated its reasoning inCuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 579 US ___ (2016) (IP Update,Vol. 19, No. 7) stating that because the 315(b) time bar is closely tied to the application and interpretation of statutes related to the institution determination, a party may not appeal the PTABs application of the one-year time bar of 315(b). In a lengthy dissent, Justice Neil Gorsuch argued that 314(d)s prohibition on appeal applied only to the subsections under this section of 314, as explicitly stated in the text of the statute, especially given the strong presumption

View original post here:
2020 at the Supreme Court - Lexology

Brad Petrishen|Telegram & Gazette

WORCESTER A former Rutland police officer serving 28 years in jail on two rape convictions has been denied a bid for a retrial he requested in November.

Jason D. Briddon, who was 40 when sentenced on the second of two rape convictions in 2012, would not have prevailed had his wife been asked to testify as an alibi, a judge ruled, because she would not have testified on account of perjury concerns.

It took two trials for a jury to convict Briddon in his second rape case, which centered on allegations Briddon raped a woman he met at a bar in 2007.

Briddons wife had testified as his alibi in the first trial thatended in mistrial but by the second trial, the two were in a contentious divorce, and Briddons lawyer, David R. Yannetti, elected not to call her.

Briddon argued Yannettis decision was a mistake, noting that he didnt bother to reach out to the wife to see whether she would, again, testify as an alibi at the second trial.

The state appeals court agreed, and ordered Worcester Superior Court Judge Daniel M. Wrenn to determine whether the wifes testimony might have proved helpful.

In a Jan. 26 ruling he wrote after hearing from the wife in a closed-door hearing, Wrenn said the woman would not have testified at a second trial because of perjury concerns.

Had (she) been subpoenaed to testify at the (second) trial as an alibi witness she would have invoked her fifth amendment privilege based on her concern of facing potential perjury charges with regard to her testimony at the first trial, Wrenn wrote.

The woman had testified at the first trial that Briddon had come home around 3 a.m. the night in question, which conflicted with the time frame the rape victim had detailed.

Wrenn also noted that because the wife had testified untruthfully at the first trial, his lawyer would have been precluded from introducing that testimony at the second trial in 2012 if he was aware it was untruthful.

Briddons 2012 conviction led to an 18-to-20-year sentence from Judge John S. McCann, who remarked at the time that Briddon took an oath "to protect society and not to rape one of its citizens.

That sentence is to run after a separate, 10-to-12-year sentence Briddon received in 2010 after being found guilty of beating and raping a prostitute in 2008.

Briddon worked as a part-time police officer in Rutland for about three years, and was employed there at the time of the 2008 rape, records show.

Link:
Former Rutland cop denied new rape trial after ex-wife, citing perjury concern, declines to provide alibi - Worcester Telegram

Update:

Key Points:

Background

On September 22, 2020, the Trump administration issued EO 13950 prohibiting federal agencies, federal grant recipients, and federal contractors from endorsing divisive race and gender concepts as we discussed in our commentary on October 6, 2020. EO 13950 forbids diversity and inclusion training that promotes or endorses divisive concepts as defined in EO 13950. On December 22, 2020, the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California granted Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction in part and issued an Order in Santa Cruz Lesbian and Gay Community Center, et al, v Donald J. Trump, et al., imposing a nationwide preliminary injunction that enjoins the federal agencies named as Defendants (federal government) from enforcing EO 13950s provisions under 4, directed at federal contractors, and 5, directed at federal grant recipients. The Order is effective immediately and directs the federal government to provide notice to all federal contractors and grant recipients as well as sub-contractors and sub-grantees covered by EO 13950 of the injunction imposed by the Courts Order.

Basis of the Courts Order

The Plaintiffs in this class-action lawsuit are non-profit organizations and a subcontractor that provide health care and critical services to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community and people living with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Plaintiffs claim that EO 13950 violates their rights under the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment because it impermissibly chills the exercise of constitutionally protected speech based on the content and viewpoint of their speech and violates their rights under the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment because EO 13950 infringes on their protected right to free speech and fails to provide adequate notice of the conduct it purports to prohibit.

The Court agreed that Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their claim that EO 13950 violates their First Amendment rights because:

Regarding Plaintiffs claims of due process violations under the Fifth Amendment, the Court agreed that the vagueness of the prohibited conduct inhibits the exercise of Plaintiffs freedom of expression and that the federal governments own interpretation of the scope of the prohibited conduct creates even more uncertainty. It concluded that the Plaintiffs established a significant adverse impact on their organizations and clients as a result of the loss of opportunities and income based on Plaintiffs and their clients understanding of the effect of EO 13950. The Court noted that the federal governments dislike of the speech at issue, while irrelevant to the analysis, permeated its briefs.

EO 13950 Provisions Enjoined by Court's Order

The Order explicitly bars the federal government from taking any action intended to effectuate or enforce 4 and 5 of EO 13950, including but not limited to the specific actions enumerated in the Courts Order. The Courts Order specifically prohibits the federal government from taking the following actions:

Workplace training: The federal government is prohibited from requiring the inclusion of express provisions in government contracts that prohibit the discussion of concepts defined as divisive race and gender concepts in workplace training programs, and from enforcing such express provisions that have been included in government contracts since the issuance of EO 13950.

Notice requirements to labor representatives and unions: All notice requirements imposed on federal contractors to labor unions or employee representatives are enjoined.

Penalties and enforcement procedures based on non-compliance: The federal government is prohibited from imposing sanctions, including but not limited to canceling, terminating or suspending a contractors or subcontractors federal contract in whole or in part, or declaring a contractor or subcontractor ineligible for federal contract awards.

Mandatory flow-down contract clauses: The federal government is prohibited from requiring contractors to include a contract clause prohibiting divisive race and gender concepts in subcontracts and supply agreements with subcontractors and vendors that provide services and supplies under the contract. Contractors also cannot be required to enforce such contract clauses against subcontractors and vendors.

Collecting information and investigating non-compliance: The federal government is precluded from initiating investigations, taking other agency action to implement EO 13950, and taking enforcement actions under EO 13950 and is barred from using its hotline to collect information regarding non-compliance with the provisions of EO 13950.

Requests for Information: The federal government is enjoined from seeking all information from any entity regarding training, workshops or programming provided to employees of government contractors and subcontractors with respect to the provisions of EO 13950 and related regulations issued by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP).

Requirements applicable to federal grant recipients: The federal government is proscribed from:

What this means to you

The Courts nationwide injunction has delayed the investigative and compliance actions and enforcement actions authorized under EO 13950. The election of Joe Biden will likely result in President-elect Biden overturning EO 13950 shortly after taking office on January 20, 2021. As a result, the prohibitions, compliance actions, requests for information and enforcement actions imposed on federal contractors and federal grantees under EO 13950 and by the OFFCP are in abeyance until either the injunction is made permanent or lifted, or the executive order is overturned. The federal governments hotline established to receive complaints regarding violations of EO 13950, states that it is no longer accepting complaints in accordance with the Courts December 22, 2020 Order. It does allow callers to continue to leave messages and refers callers who desire to file complaints of discrimination to another phone number or to a page on their website.

[View source.]

Go here to read the rest:
Federal Judge Bars Enforcement Of EO Related To Diversity Training - UPDATED - JD Supra