Sidley Austin Represents Huawei in Lawsuit Against Commerce Department
The Chinese company is suing over a 2017 equipment seizure that remains unresolved in the latest action between the telecom giant and the U.S. government.
June 24, 2019 at 11:20 AM
3 minute read
Sidley Austin lawyers have filed a civil suit on behalf of Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. against the U.S. Department of Commerce over an equipment seizure.
In a complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Friday, Huawei said several pieces of its equipment "remain in a bureaucratic limbo in an Alaskan warehouse", after being seized by the federal government in 2017.
The lawsuit is the latest in a series of actions between the Chinese company and the Trump administration. In December, the Department of Justice had chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou detained in Vancouver, Canada; and in May, the company was effectively blacklisted from trading with U.S. businesses. Huawei has sued the federal government, alleging that the administration's actions against the company are unconstitutional.
Sidley litigation partners Frank Volpe and Griffith Green are leading a Washington, D.C.-based team representing Huawei. Meanwhile, in a separate case, the firm's Washington, D.C. partner James Cole is also representing the Chinese company on charges related to Iran sanctions violation, before the District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Department of Justice has been manoeuvring to remove Cole, an Obama-era deputy attorney general, from the case, citing conflict of interest.
The equipment in question was on its way back to China in September 2017, after being tested in a Californian lab when the commerce department's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) and Office of Export Enforcement took possession of it. Huawei said the government later informed the company that it would investigate the equipment and determine whether shipping it back to China required a licence under the Export Administration Regulations.
In the filing, Huawei said it didn't apply for a licence for the shipment because the equipment was, in 2017, exempt from the export control regulations. That would change, as Huawei acknowledged in the filing, in May 2019 when the BIS added the Chinese telecoms company to its so-called Entity List.
Huawei said it submitted a formal request in November 2017 for the BIS to conduct a review to determine whether a licence was needed, but never heard back. The company said the normal processing time for such requests is fewer than 45 days.
The Chinese company said it doesn't challenge the seizure itself but claimed the BIS's post-seizure actions were unlawful.
"The defendants have either failed to make a determination whether a licence was or is required for the shipment and further failed to provide Huawei any indication as to when (or whether) [they] intend to make that determination," read the complaint, "or determined that the equipment does not require a licence and, nevertheless, wrongfully continued to detain the equipment."
Huawei is now seeking declaratory relief that the BIS determine whether shipping the equipment back to China violates the EAR or, if not, release the seized equipment.
|Related Stories:
Huawei's Chief Legal Officer Takes Center Stage in Conflict With US
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAustralia’s MinterEllison Loses More Partners From Canberra Practice
2 minute readMore Than 2 Dozen Lawyers Break Off From DLA Piper Affiliate in Brazil to Form New Firm
Trending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250