IN RE: The CHAMBERLAIN GROUP (2019)

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

IN RE: The CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC., Petitioner

2019-111

Decided: March 07, 2019

Before Newman, Moore, and Stoll, Circuit Judges.

Benjamin Elacqua, Fish & Richardson, PC, Houston, TX, Joseph V. Colaianni, Jr., Esq., Fish & Richardson PC, Washington, DC, Robert P. Courtney, Counsel, Fish & Richardson P.C., Minneapolis, MN, for Petitioner Jason C. White, Michael J. Abernathy, Nicholas A. Restauri, Attorney, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Chicago, IL, Julie S. Goldemberg, Counsel, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Philadelphia, PA, William R. Peterson, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Houston, TX, for Respondent One World Technologies, Inc. Patricia M. McCarthy, Assistant Director, Department of Justice, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Washington, DC, Guy Eddon, Ph.D., Trial Attorney, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civil Division, New York, NY, Marcella Powell, Trial Attorney, Amy Rubin, Department of Justice, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, New York, NY, for Respondents United States, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Department of Homeland Security, Kevin K. McAleenan Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Attorney Advisor, United States International Trade Commission, General Counsel, Washington, DC, for Respondent United States International Trade Commission

ON PETITION

ORDER

The Chamberlain Group, Inc. seeks a writ of mandamus that would vacate the temporary restraining order (TRO) entered by the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) on February 11, 2019.^* The International Trade Commission supports the petition. One World Technologies, Inc. opposes, as do the United States, the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, and the Acting Commissioner of Customs. Having considered the papers, the court deems it the appropriate course here to deny the mandamus petition with the understanding that the jurisdictional issues will be timely resolved.

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

The petition is denied.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE. The petition also sought an order directing the CIT “not [to] proceed further with the adjudication of Chamberlain’s patent rights without according Chamberlain full party-intervenor status.” However, after the petition was filed, the CIT granted Chamberlain’s motion to intervene and fully participate as a party in the case.

Per Curiam.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law