On November 4, 2025, Judges Taranto, Chen, and Dyk (collectively, the “Panel”) heard oral argument from Courtney McNamara, counsel for the International Trade Commission (“ITC”), and Andrew Dhuey and Alexandra Moss, court-appointed amici curiae, in the ITC’s appeals of two different cases – one involving mattresses, No. 2024-1566 (“CVB case”) and the other involving fertilizers, No. 2025-127 (“OCP case”). The overarching issue raised by the ITC in both appeals is whether the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) is statutorily required to preserve the confidential status of information treated as business proprietary information (“BPI”) by the Commission.

Please click on article title to read more.

On November 4, 2025, Judges Taranto, Chen, and Dyk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral argument from Courtney McNamara, counsel for the International Trade Commission, and Andrew Dhuey and Alexandra Moss, court-appointed amici curiae, in the ITC’s appeals of two different cases – one involving mattresses, No. 2024-1566 (“CVB case”) and the other involving fertilizers, No. 2025-127 (“OCP case”). The overarching issue raised by the ITC in both appeals is whether the U.S. Court of International Trade is statutorily required to preserve the confidential status of information treated as business proprietary information by the Commission.

The Panel was interested in hearing argument in four primary areas. First, the Panel questioned whether the Court had jurisdiction to consider the CVB case in the first instance, given that the appeal was filed more than 60 days after the CIT issued its opinion on the merits; and if untimely, whether the OCP case sufficiently overlapped with the issues raised in CVB. Second, the Panel wanted to hear whether parties and non-parties in CVB and OCP had the opportunity to object to the specific BPI being disclosed by the CIT, and whether they in fact objected prior to disclosure. Next, the Panel inquired whether the blanket business proprietary designations applied by the Commission to questionnaire responses complied with the procedures required under 19 U.S.C. § 1677 and C.F.R. § 201.6 obligating the submitters to mark information any BPI as confidential. And finally, the Panel probed whether the CIT had authority to declassify BPI under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a and/or common law, and if so, what type of notice should be given by the Court prior to such declassification.

CITBA thanks Jane Dempsey, Counsel at Polsinelli, for preparing this summary of the argument and making it available to CITBA members.

Please click on article title to read more.

After 36 years of service, Mario Toscano has retired as the Clerk of the Court of the U.S. Court of International Trade. Please enjoy an interview with Mario, reflecting on his time at the Court, his many contributions, and his next steps.

1. What were your goals when you took over the Clerk of Court role? Do you feel that you achieved all of them?

When I stepped into the role of Clerk of Court, my primary goals were to improve the efficiency of our operations, both in terms of customer service and internal administrative processes, while maintaining high-quality service in the face of tightening budget constraints. I aimed to streamline procedures, eliminate redundancies, and harness technology to better support the Court’s evolving needs. Looking back, I’m proud of the progress we made toward these goals.

One of the most impactful initiatives was the modernization of our courtrooms. By integrating cutting-edge audiovisual technology, we significantly enhanced the courtroom experience for attorneys and parties alike. These improvements have allowed for more effective evidence presentations and enabled smoother remote participation for witnesses and counsel, both of which contribute to more efficient and accessible proceedings, directly supporting our goal of doing more with less.

Please click on the headline to continue reading the article.