Just hours after a federal judge declined Sharp Electronics' request to block a foreign arbitrator's gag order Monday, the company appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

In August, Sharp filed a lawsuit claiming a foreign arbitrator's gag order should be declared unenforceable. That order, issued in May, prevents Sharp from publicly discussing its ongoing dispute and arbitration with Chinese manufacturer Hisense, with whom it's seeking to end a licensing agreement. Sharp asked U.S. District Judge James Boasberg of the District of Columbia to declare the order unenforceable under the New York Convention, on the grounds that it's contrary to U.S. public policy on freedom of speech.

In an opinion Monday, Boasberg declined to do so, prompting Sharp to appeal to the D.C. Circuit.

“Should a federal court stand idly by when a foreign arbitral commission issues an order restricting the speech of a private party? Actually, yes,” the judge wrote in his 35-page opinion.

Sharp, a Japanese firm, and Hisense entered into a limited trademark-licensing agreement in 2015, under which Hisense could manufacture and sell televisions baring Sharp's name in the United States. Sharp sought to terminate the deal this year, alleging Hisense violated certain regulatory standards and produced sub-quality TVs. Under their agreement, the parties entered arbitration in the Singapore International Arbitration Center, where an arbitrator issued an order blocking Sharp from publicly making any “disruptive or disparaging statements” about Hisense or the dispute.

Sharp claims the order bars it from communicating with the Federal Communications Commission about poorly manufactured TVs.

In his opinion Monday, Boasberg wrote that while the court has subject-matter jurisdiction to address the case, there is no personal jurisdiction. Boasberg said Sharp failed to show Hisense had strong enough connections to bring the case in D.C. While Sharp also argued its case fell under a special personal jurisdiction exemption because it alleged Hisense made false statements to the FCC, Boasberg said that argument fell flat too. That exemption, Boasberg wrote, required Sharp to allege Hisense committed “fraud,” which it didn't do.

Even though he ruled against Sharp on the threshold questions of jurisdiction, Boasberg still dug into the merits of the case. He wrote the order was not contrary to U.S. policy, because it did not involve a government trampling Sharp's First Amendment rights. Action by a government or state would be necessary, the judge wrote, for Sharp to claim such a public policy exemption.

“Put simply, there is no free-floating, penumbral public policy protecting free speech. The principle underlying the First Amendment—that citizens shall be free from government acts infringing upon their rights of expression and petition—is inherently tied to the state-action requirement,” Boasberg wrote.

Randy Miller, a partner at Venable who argued on behalf of Sharp, said it's that portion of the judge's opinion that will be key on appeal. Miller said that “the New York Convention does not require state action,” and that the relevant provision under the convention only asks “if an arbitral award is contrary to American public policy.”

“It's hard to imagine a one-sided prior restraint being thought of as consistent with American public policy,” Miller said.