Storewall, LLC v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
1ConcurrenceDyk, Circuit Judge
I join the majority opinion except for Part B, and I also agree that the majority reaches the correct result. However, I respectfully disagree with the reasoning of Part B. In my view, Heading 9403 as *1365applied to “unit furniture” is a use provision, rather than an eo nomine provision as the majority concludes.
I
To be a use provision, a heading has to “[describe] articles by the manner in which they are used as opposed to by name.” Len-Ron Mfg. Co. v. United States, 334 F.3d 1304, 1308 (Fed.Cir.2003). In contrast, an eo nomine provision is one “in which an item is identified by name.” Id.
In many…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Orlando Food Corp. v. StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- Millenium Lumber Distribution Ltd. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2009
- Park B. Smith, Ltd., Plaintiff-Cross v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2003
- Processed Plastic Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
- Minnetonka Brands, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2000
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.