Legal Opinion

Marcel Watch Co. v. United States

United States Court of International Trade

Decided June 19, 1992No. Court 83-11-01578PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND ORDER

AQUILINO, Judge:

This action had been suspended under Belfont Sales Corp. v. United States, 11 CIT 541, 666 F.Supp. 1568 (1987), reh’g denied, 12 CIT 916, 698 F.Supp. 916 (1988), aff'd, 878 F.2d 1413 (Fed.Cir.1989), a test case which is now final. In that case, this court had found, among other things, that a quartz analogue watch or “QAW” does contain a watch movement when viewed in the light of Texas Instruments Inc. v. United States, 82 Cust.Ct. 272, C.D. 4810, 475 F.Supp. 1183 (1979), aff'd, 620 F.2d 269 (CCPA 1980), Texas Instruments Inc. v. United States, 82 Cust.Ct.…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Jarvis Clark Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
  3. Jarvis Clark Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
  4. Belfont Sales Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1988
  5. United States v. Texas Instruments, Inc.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1982

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Marcel Watch Company v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1993
  2. Pam, S.P.A. v. United States Department of CommerceUnited States Court of International Trade · 2003
  3. American Silicon Technologies v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1999
  4. Marcel Watch Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1993
  5. North American Foreign Trading Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2001

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API