Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01866/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01866-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Otter Products, LLC
Appellee
United States
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

OTTER PRODUCTS, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellant

______________________ 

2015-1866

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of International 

Trade in No. 1:13-cv-00269-CRK, Judge Claire R. Kelly.

______________________ 

Decided: August 24, 2016

______________________ 

LOUIS STEFAN MASTRIANI, Adduci, Mastriani & 

Schaumberg, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffappellee. Also represented by MUNFORD PAGE HALL II,

BEAU JACKSON, DANA WATTS, GIANG TONTHAT. 

BEVERLY A. FARRELL, International Trade Field Office, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United 

States Department of Justice, New York, NY, argued for 

defendant-appellant. Also represented by BENJAMIN C.

MIZER, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, AMY M. RUBIN; BETH C.

BROTMAN, Office of Assistant Chief Counsel, International 

Trade Litigation, United States Bureau of Customs and 

Case: 15-1866 Document: 56-2 Page: 1 Filed: 08/24/2016
2 OTTER PRODUCTS, LLC v. US

Border Protection, United States Department of Homeland Security, New York, NY.

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, O’MALLEY, and CHEN, Circuit 

Judges.

O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge. 

The United States appeals the judgment of the United 

States Court of International Trade rendered on cross 

motions for summary judgment in which the court classified the subject merchandise, imported by Otter Products, 

LLC (“OtterBox”), under subheading 3926.90.9980 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(“HTSUS”) as “[o]ther articles of plastics” instead of as 

“similar containers” under HTSUS subheading 

4202.99.00. See Otter Products, LLC v. United States, 70 

F. Supp. 3d 1281 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2015). We affirm. 

BACKGROUND

A. The Subject Merchandise

OtterBox is the owner and importer of record of the 

subject merchandise. The specific goods at issue are 

durable and protective cases designed for certain styles of 

smartphones—Blackberry Curve 9220, 9310, and 9320; 

iPhone 4S; Samsung i500; and the HTC4 My Touch—and 

an iPod touch, 4th generation. The cases consist of two 

styles: the Commuter and the Defender Series. There is 

no dispute as to which merchandise is at issue. 

OtterBox described the Commuter Series cases as 

“durable protective products comprised of two basic 

pieces: a silicone mid-layer and, most importantly, a rigid 

outer plastic shell.” Otter Products, 70 F. Supp. 3d at 

1286 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 

The Commuter Series cases “have a smooth exterior, 

designed to allow them to slide easily in and out of pockets.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 

Case: 15-1866 Document: 56-2 Page: 2 Filed: 08/24/2016
OTTER PRODUCTS, LLC v. US 3

“[T]he plastic components of these cases ‘do not cover or 

enclose the screen’ of the device but do allow the consumer ‘the option of affixing to the screen of the electronic 

device a thin, plastic, self-adhesive film to protect the 

screen.’” Id. (citation omitted). 

OtterBox described the Defender Series cases as consisting of four pieces: “a clear protective plastic membrane, a high-impact polycarbonate shell, a plastic belt 

clip holster, and a durable outer silicone cover.” Id.

(citation and internal quotation mark omitted).

All of the cases at issue were imported into the United 

States through the port of Memphis, Tennessee between 

April 23, 2012, and July 11, 2012. Id. at 1284.

B. Customs’ Classification 

Customs classified the cases as “similar containers” 

under HTSUS subheading 4202.99.00 with a duty rate of 

20% ad valorem. The relevant portions of HTSUS Heading 4202 are:

4202

Trunks, suitcases, vanity cases, attache cases, 

briefcases, school satchels, spectacle cases, binocular cases, camera cases, musical instrument cases, 

gun cases, holsters and similar containers; traveling bags, insulated food or beverage bags, toiletry 

bags, knapsacks and backpacks, handbags, shopping bags, wallets, purses, map cases, cigarette 

cases, tobacco pouches, tool bags, sports bags, bottle cases, jewelry boxes, powder cases, cutlery cases and similar containers, of leather or of 

composition leather, of sheeting of plastics, of textile materials, of vulcanized fiber or of paperboard, or wholly or mainly covered with such 

materials or with paper:

Case: 15-1866 Document: 56-2 Page: 3 Filed: 08/24/2016
4202.99

Other:

Of materials (other than leather, composition 

leather, sheeting of plastics, textile materials, vulcanized fiber or paperboard) wholly or mainly covered with paper:

4202.99.9000

Other............................................................20%

OtterBox paid duties at the 20% ad valorem rate, and 

the goods were liquidated between March 8, 2013, and 

May 24, 2013, at that rate. OtterBox timely protested the 

liquidation of the entries and sought accelerated disposition. The protest was deemed denied on August 1, 2013.

C. Court of International Trade Decision 

OtterBox filed a complaint in the Court of International Trade contesting the denial of its protest under 19 

U.S.C. § 1515. Joint Appendix (“J.A.”) 39. Therein, 

OtterBox alleged that the subject merchandise should 

have been classified as “other articles of plastics” under 

HTSUS subheading 3926.90.99, at a duty rate of 5.3% ad 

valorem. J.A. 49. The parties filed cross-motions for 

summary judgment.

In a decision dated May 26, 2015, the Court of International Trade granted OtterBox’s motion, finding that 

the cases are not classifiable as “similar containers” under 

Heading 4202, but instead are properly classified under 

Heading 3926, as other articles of plastics. At the outset, 

the court noted that, because there is no genuine dispute 

as to the physical nature of the goods, the analysis “focuses on the legal question of whether heading 4202, HTSUS, 

is the proper tariff heading for the subject merchandise, 

or if not, which other heading, including 3926, HTSUS, is 

the proper heading.” Otter Products, 70 F. Supp. 3d at 

1287. The Court of International Trade explained that, 

Case: 15-1866 Document: 56-2 Page: 4 Filed: 08/24/2016
OTTER PRODUCTS, LLC v. US 5

because the goods are not listed eo nomine (by name) in 

Heading 4202, the relevant inquiry is whether the cases 

are “similar containers” to the exemplars listed therein. 

Id. at 1288. The court concluded that they are not. Id. 

The Court of International Trade explained that, to fall 

under the general phrase “similar containers,” the merchandise must possess the same essential characteristics 

or purposes that unite the exemplars. Id. Pursuant to 

this court’s precedent, the Court of International Trade

noted that four characteristics unite the exemplars of 

Heading 4202: organizing, storing, protecting, and carrying. Id. at 1289 (citing Avenues In Leather, Inc. v. United 

States (Avenues III), 423 F.3d 1326, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 

2005)).

The Court of International Trade began its analysis 

by looking to the common dictionary definition of the 

phrase “similar container,” which requires that the merchandise be a “receptacle or object, which resembles or is 

of a like nature or kind to the listed exemplars, and is 

designed or has the capacity to contain, store, or hold 

certain articles.” Id. at 1288–89. The court found that 

“the Commuter and Defender Series cases do not fall 

within the common or commercial meaning of the phrase 

‘similar containers’” because each of the objects listed in 

Heading 4202 “allow an article to be placed inside them 

and/or taken out without much effort by opening or closing the receptacle.” Id. at 1289. “In contrast, the cases at 

issue are specifically designed for and fit snuggly [sic]

over particular electronic devices . . . . It takes some 

effort to remove a case from an electronic device where 

the case generally remains on the device in a semipermanent manner.” Id.

The Court of International Trade found that, although 

the subject cases protect, they do not organize, store, or 

carry. Next, the Court of International Trade agreed with 

OtterBox that the exemplars in Heading 4202 have another characteristic that the Commuter and Defender 

Case: 15-1866 Document: 56-2 Page: 5 Filed: 08/24/2016
6 OTTER PRODUCTS, LLC v. US

Series cases do not share: “the inability to use items when

inside those containers.” Id. at 1292. While the listed 

examples “are not ones which permit the use of the enclosed item,” the electronic devices enclosed by the subject 

merchandise “retain their full, 100 percent functionality 

while inside an OtterBox case.” Id. (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the fact that the 

electronic device remains fully functional is inconsistent 

with objects enclosed by the exemplars listed in Heading 

4202. 

The court concluded that OtterBox satisfied its burden of showing that the cases are not classifiable in 

Heading 4202. The court then found that the subject 

merchandise is properly classifiable under Heading 3926 

because both the Commuter Series and Defender Series 

cases are made of materials listed in chapter 39. Specifically, the Commuter Series consists of two basic components: the rigid outer plastic shell and the silicone midlayer. Id. at 1294. The Defender Series consists of four 

pieces: “a clear protective plastic membrane, a highimpact polycarbonate shell, a plastic belt clip holster, and 

a durable outer silicone cover.” Id. Because none of the 

specific subheadings in chapter 39 refer to the subject 

merchandise, the Court of International Trade found that 

it is properly classified under 3926.90.9980: “[o]ther 

articles of plastics.” Id. at 1295. The court therefore 

granted OtterBox’s motion for summary judgment and 

denied the government’s cross-motion. The government 

timely appealed to this court.

DISCUSSION

“We review a grant of summary judgment by the 

Court of International Trade for correctness as a matter of 

law and decide de novo the proper interpretation of the 

tariff provisions as well as whether there are genuine 

issues of material fact to preclude summary judgment.” 

Case: 15-1866 Document: 56-2 Page: 6 Filed: 08/24/2016
OTTER PRODUCTS, LLC v. US 7

Millenium Lumber Distrib. v. United States, 558 F.3d 

1326, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

We employ the same standard employed by the Court 

of International Trade in assessing Customs’ classification determinations. LeMans Corp. v. United States, 660 

F.3d 1311, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2011). A classification decision 

involves two steps. First, the court must “ascertain[] the 

meaning of specific terms in the tariff provisions.” Victoria’s Secret Direct, LLC v. United States, 769 F.3d 1102, 

1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Millenium, 558 F.3d at 

1328). Second, the court determines “whether the subject 

merchandise comes within the description of those terms.” 

Id. “Determining the proper meaning of terms is a question of law that we review de novo, while determining 

whether the item fits within such meaning is a question of 

fact that we review for clear error.” Avenues III, 423 F.3d

at 1330. When there is no dispute as to the nature of the 

merchandise, the two-step classification analysis “collapses entirely into a question of law.” Cummins Inc. v. 

United States, 454 F.3d 1361, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

While we accord deference to a classification decision 

“relative to its ‘power to persuade,’ we have ‘an independent responsibility to decide the legal issue of the proper 

meaning and scope of HTSUS terms.’” Kahrs Int’l, Inc. v. 

United States, 713 F.3d 640, 644 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citations omitted).

The HTSUS scheme “is organized by headings, each of 

which has one or more subheadings; the headings set 

forth general categories of merchandise, and the subheadings provide a more particularized segregation of the 

goods within each category.” Wilton Indus., Inc. v. United 

States, 741 F.3d 1263, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The proper 

classification of merchandise entering the United States 

is governed by the General Rules of Interpretation 

(“GRIs”) of the HTSUS and the Additional United States 

Case: 15-1866 Document: 56-2 Page: 7 Filed: 08/24/2016
8 OTTER PRODUCTS, LLC v. US

Rules of Interpretation. Orlando Food Corp. v. United 

States, 140 F.3d 1437, 1439 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 

We apply the GRIs in numerical order, beginning with 

GRI 1, which provides that “classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any 

relative section or chapter notes.” La Crosse Tech. v. 

United States, 723 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2013). 

Where an “imported article is described in whole by a 

single classification heading or subheading, then that 

single classification applies, and the succeeding GRIs are 

inoperative.” Id. (quoting CamelBak Prods., LLC v. 

United States, 649 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). 

According to GRI 1, the HTSUS headings and section 

or chapter notes govern the classification of a product. 

Kahrs, 713 F.3d at 644. Absent contrary legislative 

intent, we construe HTSUS terms according to their 

common and commercial meanings, which we presume 

are the same. Id. “To discern the common meaning of a 

tariff term, we may consult dictionaries, scientific authorities, and other reliable information sources.” Id. After 

consulting the headings and section or chapter notes, we 

may also consult the World Customs Organization’s 

Explanatory Notes, which accompany each chapter of the 

HTSUS. LeMans, 660 F.3d at 1316. Although the Explanatory Notes are not legally binding, they are “persuasive” and are “generally indicative” of the proper 

interpretation of the tariff provision. Id. (citation omitted).

Here, the parties dispute whether the cases at issue 

are properly classifiable under Heading 4202 or Heading 

3926. As noted above, Heading 4202 covers, inter alia, 

“[t]runks, suitcases, vanity cases, attache cases, briefcases, school satchels, spectacle cases, binocular cases, camera cases, musical instrument cases, gun cases, holsters 

and similar containers.” Heading 3926 covers “[o]ther 

articles of plastics and articles of other materials of headCase: 15-1866 Document: 56-2 Page: 8 Filed: 08/24/2016
OTTER PRODUCTS, LLC v. US 9

ing 3901 to 3914.” The Chapter Notes provide that “chapter [39] does not cover . . . trunks, suitcases, handbags or 

other containers of heading 4202.” Note 2(m) to ch. 39, 

HTSUS. Thus, if the imported cases are properly classifiable under Heading 4202, they cannot be classified under 

Heading 3926 (which is part of Chapter 39).

Heading 4202 is an eo nomine provision, which means 

that it describes goods according to their specific name. 

La Crosse, 723 F.3d at 1358. It is undisputed that the 

protective cases at issue here are not named in Heading 

4202. Accordingly, to be classified within Heading 4202, 

the merchandise must fall into the category of “similar 

containers.”

Interpreting the term “similar containers” requires an 

ejusdem generis analysis to determine if the goods are “of 

the same kind” as those listed in the heading. Totes, Inc. 

v. United States, 69 F.3d 495, 498 (Fed. Cir. 1995). “In 

classification cases, ejusdem generis requires that, for any 

imported merchandise to fall within the scope of the

general term or phrase, the merchandise must possess the 

same essential characteristics or purposes that unite the 

listed exemplars preceding the general term or phrase.” 

Avenues III, 423 F.3d at 1330. 

A court must first “consider the common characteristics or unifying purpose of the listed exemplars in a 

heading.” Victoria’s Secret, 769 F.3d at 1107 (quoting 

Avenues in Leather, Inc. v. United States (Avenues I), 178 

F.3d 1241, 1244 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (internal quotation 

marks omitted)). The court can then “consider the merchandise at issue with the identified unifying characteristics (or purpose) in mind.” Id. “Classification of imported 

merchandise under ejusdem generis is appropriate only if 

the imported merchandise shares the characteristics or 

purpose and does not have a more specific primary purpose that is inconsistent with the listed exemplars.” 

Avenues I, 178 F.3d at 1244. We have previously held 

Case: 15-1866 Document: 56-2 Page: 9 Filed: 08/24/2016
10 OTTER PRODUCTS, LLC v. US

that the “common characteristic or unifying purpose of 

the goods in heading 4202 consists of ‘organizing, storing, 

protecting, and carrying various’ items.” Avenues III, 423 

F.3d at 1332 (quoting Avenues in Leather, Inc. v. United 

States (Avenues II), 317 F.3d 1399, 1402 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).

On appeal, the government argues that the Court of 

International Trade committed three reversible errors. 

First, the government maintains that the court erred by 

placing a restriction on the meaning of the term “container” that is not found in dictionary definitions: requiring a 

concurrent and simple physical action to gain access. 

Second, while the court did not formally hold that “similar 

containers” under Heading 4202 must satisfy all four 

ejusdem generis factors (organizing, storing, protecting, 

and carrying), the government argues that the court 

effectively imposed such a requirement. Finally, the 

government argues that, even if “similar containers” must 

satisfy all four factors, the Court of International Trade

erred by requiring that they satisfy the additional characteristic of preventing anything from being operational 

while in the containers.

OtterBox responds that the Court of International 

Trade correctly determined that the products at issue: 

(1) are not “containers”; (2) do not share all of the four 

essential characteristics of goods listed in Heading 4202; 

and (3) have a specific purpose that is fundamentally 

inconsistent with the listed exemplars. Accordingly, the 

subject merchandise is precluded from classification in 

Heading 4202.

A. The Subject Merchandise

Is Not a “Container”

To be classifiable in Heading 4202, OtterBox’s products must be “containers.” The word “container” is not 

defined in the HTSUS or in the legislative history. The 

Court of International Trade therefore looked to the 

parties’ proposed dictionary definitions, including the 

Case: 15-1866 Document: 56-2 Page: 10 Filed: 08/24/2016
OTTER PRODUCTS, LLC v. US 11

government’s preferred definitions: “a thing in which 

material is held or carried; receptacle” and “a thing that 

contains or can contain something; box, crate, can, jar, 

etc.” Otter Products, 70 F. Supp. 3d at 1289. The government also cited the definition of “contain” meaning “to 

have within; enclose.” Id. Looking to the list of examples 

in Heading 4202, the court concluded that “each of these 

objects allow an article to be placed inside them and/or 

taken out without much effort by opening or closing the 

receptacle.” Id.

On appeal, the government argues that there “is no 

requirement that a box, crate, or receptacle require a 

physical action to gain access.” Appellant Br. 17. According to the government, some of the specific exemplars 

identified in Heading 4202—such as spectacle cases or 

holsters—may be open at the top. The government maintains that, because “articles classifiable under Heading 

4202 cannot be constrained in the manner that the trial 

court held, such a construction of ‘container’ constitutes 

legal error.” Id. And, the government asserts that, because electronic devices are held inside or are enclosed by 

the cases at issue, each case itself is a “container” under 

the common meaning of the word.

The Court of International Trade noted that the items 

listed in the government’s definition of “container”—“box, 

crate, can, jar”—“all require some concurrent and relatively simple act to gain access to the receptacle (i.e., 

twisting a lid, lifting a cover).” Otter Products, 70 F. 

Supp. 3d at 1289. In contrast, the cases at issue “are 

specifically designed for and fit snuggly [sic] over particular electronic devices and do not require an action to open 

or uncover the item.” Id. To that end, the court noted 

that “it is more common to think of the cases as an addition/accessory to the electronic device which can be added 

to or removed at the consumer’s liking.” Id. at 1289–90. 

The court further found that the cases only “minimally 

resemble containers.” Id. at 1292.

Case: 15-1866 Document: 56-2 Page: 11 Filed: 08/24/2016
12 OTTER PRODUCTS, LLC v. US

Although the government argues that the court erred 

in its construction of “container,” the Court of International Trade recognized that assessing the word “container” to determine the meaning of “similar container” is only 

a starting point and that “some of the problems that arise 

from describing the electronic device cases as containers 

foreshadow the problems that will arise with trying to 

classify the cases as ‘similar containers’ under heading 

4202, HTSUS.” Id. at 1289. Thus, while the trial court 

did note that the examples indicate that “containers,” as 

used in Heading 4202, implies something which encases 

something else, the court did not end its inquiry there nor 

even rely heavily on that fact. This approach is consistent 

with our case law, which requires that the court first 

ascertain the meaning of the specific terms in the tariff 

provision, and then determine whether the goods come 

within the description of those terms. Kahrs, 713 F.3d at 

644. Accordingly, we see no error in the court’s analysis. 

B. The Subject Merchandise

Is Not a “Similar Container”

As noted, for the Commuter and Defender Series cases to fall under the general phrase “similar containers,” 

they must “possess the same essential characteristics or 

purposes that unite the listed exemplars preceding the 

general term or phrase.” Avenues III, 423 F.3d at 1332. 

Also, as noted, the “common characteristic or unifying 

purpose of the goods in heading 4202 consists of ‘organizing, storing, protecting, and carrying various’ items.” 

Avenues III, 423 F.3d at 1332 (quoting Avenues II, 317 

F.3d at 1402). 

The parties dispute whether the subject merchandise 

must possess all four of the characteristics uniting the 

exemplars, or merely one of them, in order to be classified 

as “similar containers” under Heading 4202. The parties 

agree, however, that this court has not directly addressed 

the issue. The Court of International Trade found it 

Case: 15-1866 Document: 56-2 Page: 12 Filed: 08/24/2016
OTTER PRODUCTS, LLC v. US 13

unnecessary to answer the question “because, in this case, 

coverings which minimally resemble containers, serve a 

protective purpose, and may at times serve some carrying 

purpose, while allowing full functionality of the enclosed 

merchandise are not ‘similar containers.’” Otter Products, 

70 F. Supp. 3d at 1292–93.

On appeal, the government argues that this court’s 

precedent provides “support for the conclusion that the 

four characteristics are disjunctive.” Appellant Br. 11. In 

support of this proposition, the government points to 

three Federal Circuit decisions: Outer Circle Products v. 

United States, 590 F.3d 1323, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (finding that where the subject articles “organize, store, protect, or carry food or beverages,” they cannot be classified 

under heading 4202 as no item in 4202 involves containment of any food or beverage) (emphasis added); Len-Ron 

Manufacturing Co. v. United States, 334 F.3d 1304, 1313 

(Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[T]he essential characteristics of the 

articles falling within subheading 4202.32 are that they 

generally organize, store, protect, or carry items.”) (emphasis added) (citing Totes, 69 F.3d at 498); and SGI, Inc. 

v. United States, 122 F.3d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 

(“The additional exemplars in HTSUS that the Court of 

International Trade states makes the provision broader 

than the comparable luggage provision under TSUS also 

do not include containers that organize, store, protect, or

carry food or beverages.”) (emphasis added). The government also cites two Court of International Trade decisions 

to support its position that the test is disjunctive: Processed Plastic Co. v. United States, 395 F. Supp. 2d 1296 

(Ct. Int’l Trade 2005) (stating that “merchandise can be 

classified under heading 4202 even if it serves only one of 

the four stated purposes”); and Jewelpak Corp. v. United 

States, 97 F. Supp. 2d 1192 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2000). But see

Victoria’s Secret, 769 F.3d at 1109 (stating that the relevant unifying characteristics for Heading 4202 are “organizing, storing, protecting, and carrying various items” 

Case: 15-1866 Document: 56-2 Page: 13 Filed: 08/24/2016
14 OTTER PRODUCTS, LLC v. US

(quoting Avenues I, 178 F.3d at 1245) (emphasis added); 

and Totes, 69 F.3d at 498 (noting that the essential characteristics are “organizing, storing, protecting, and carrying”) (emphasis added)). 

This court has yet to hold expressly that a product 

must share all four unifying characteristics to qualify as a 

“similar container” under Heading 4202 or that sharing 

some specific subset of those four characteristics is sufficient. We take this opportunity to clarify that there is no 

requirement that the subject merchandise meet all four 

characteristics to qualify as a “similar container” under 

Heading 4202. Courts should consider the four characteristics collectively and then determine whether, in light of 

those considerations, the classification would lead to an 

inconsistency. If, for example, an item met only one of the 

four characteristics, it almost certainly would not qualify 

as a “similar container” under Heading 4202. Allowing a 

single factor to satisfy the inquiry would, in almost all 

conceivable scenarios, render the scope of “similar containers” so broad that it would lead to absurd results and 

make consistent application of the standard all but impossible. See Appellee Br. 15 (“If items were classifiable 

in the heading as ‘similar containers’ so long as they 

organized, stored, protected, or carried something, there 

would be almost no limit to the reach of the heading.”). It 

would, moreover, divorce consideration of the individual 

characteristics from any consideration of a unifying 

purpose, making the latter virtually impossible to define.

As explained below, the Court of International Trade

engaged in the correct analysis. It correctly found that 

the subject cases satisfy only one of the four characteristics and have an essential purpose that is inconsistent 

with the exemplars of Heading 4202.

1. Organize

First, the Court of International Trade held that the 

cases “do not serve any organizational purpose” because 

Case: 15-1866 Document: 56-2 Page: 14 Filed: 08/24/2016
OTTER PRODUCTS, LLC v. US 15

they “can and do only hold one electronic device.” Otter 

Products, 70 F. Supp. 3d at 1290. The court explained, 

Even if it is possible to organize a single item 

without reference to another item, the electronic 

devices are not any more organized when they are 

in the cases. Rather, once the sole electronic device is placed inside the cases, it remains one article surrounded by the case that acts like a suit of 

armor. The electronic device is just as organized, 

tidy, arranged, or orderly before it is placed in the 

cases as it is after.

Id. 

On appeal, the government argues that the Court of 

International Trade ignored the fact that some of the 

exemplars of Heading 4202—including camera cases, 

binocular cases, and holsters—each may hold only a 

single article. See Appellant Br. 18. But OtterBox presented evidence that each of these exemplars often contain multiple items. Appellee Br. 17 (“Camera cases often 

contain extra lenses, batteries, cables, and memory cards. 

Binocular cases often contain straps, cleaning cloths, lens 

caps, and other accessories. Gun cases and holsters may 

contain multiple guns and rounds of ammunition.”). The 

same is true for the other exemplars in Heading 4202.

The government cites Processed Plastics for the proposition that “simply ‘containing’ items is at least a rudimentary form of organization.” 395 F. Supp. 2d at 1309. 

As the Court of International Trade found, however, the 

organizational capacity of the backpacks and beach bags 

at issue in Processed Plastics “cannot be equated to the 

cases at issue here.” Otter Products, 70 F. Supp. 3d at 

1293. In Processed Plastics, it was undisputed that the 

backpacks were used to carry multiple items and “the 

beach bag is large enough to allow several lightweight 

items to be organized and stored inside it, in much the 

same manner as the backpacks.” 395 F. Supp. 2d at 1313. 

Case: 15-1866 Document: 56-2 Page: 15 Filed: 08/24/2016
16 OTTER PRODUCTS, LLC v. US

In a subsequent Court of International Trade decision, 

moreover, the court specifically stated that, “[i]n the 

context of heading 4202, organization implies multiple 

items placed together in a single container.” Firstrax, 

2011 Ct. Int’l Trade LEXIS 132, at *18 (collecting cases). 

We agree with the Court of International Trade that 

organization requires at least the possibility of storing 

multiple items. Unlike the subject merchandise at issue 

in Processed Plastics, the cases here contain a single item: 

an electronic device.

2. Store

The Court of International Trade found that the cases 

also do not possess the essential characteristic of “storing.” Specifically, the Court of International Trade noted 

that the common understanding of “store” implies setting 

something aside—“[i]t does not include present use but 

looks toward using whatever item is stored in the future.” 

Otter Products, 70 F. Supp. 3d at 1290.

According to the government, the cases serve the purpose of “storing” because they are “keeping the enclosed 

devices safe while in the pockets, backpacks or handbags 

of their owners until their next use.” Appellant Br. 19. 

As such, the government maintains, the cases satisfy the 

court’s definition. We disagree.

The government’s argument conflates protection and 

storage, but they are different. Satisfying the former is 

not the same as satisfying the latter. As the Court of 

International Trade correctly found, “an important characteristic of the subject cases is allowing the electronic 

device to remain fully functional, so that it may be used 

while inside the subject case.” Otter Products, 70 F. Supp. 

3d at 1290. We agree that, because the devices remain 

fully functional, the cases do not comport with the common understanding of the term “storing.”

Case: 15-1866 Document: 56-2 Page: 16 Filed: 08/24/2016
OTTER PRODUCTS, LLC v. US 17

3. Protect

It is undisputed that the electronic cases at issue protect. Id. (“[T]he parties do not dispute that the subject 

cases ‘protect.’”).

4. Carry

The Court of International Trade acknowledged that 

the Defender Series cases contain a belt clip that “provide[s] minimal carrying functionality for the electronic 

devices.” Id. But “the belt clips are removable and, even 

when connected, are only used or usable for brief periods 

where the user is in motion and has determined to place 

the electronic device in the belt clip, as opposed to a 

pocket.” Id. at 1290–91.

On appeal, the government argues that all of the cases satisfy the “carry” factor because “electronic devices are 

held within the cases.” Appellant Br. 20. The government submits that “carry” is defined as “to hold or support 

while moving.” Id. (citing Webster’s New World College 

Dictionary 215 (Third College Ed. 1976)). As OtterBox 

points out, although the cases at issue “remain in place 

while the user moves, . . . they add nothing to the carrying 

capability that the electronic device, standing alone, 

would not already have.” Appellee Br. 20. If anything, 

the electronic device “carries” the case. We agree with the 

Court of International Trade that the subject merchandise 

simply does not “carry” anything for purposes of being

classified under Heading 4202.

5. The Court of International Trade 

Did Not Add a Fifth Factor 

As noted, “[c]lassification of imported merchandise 

under ejusdem generis is appropriate only if the imported 

merchandise shares the characteristics or purpose [unifying the named exemplars] and does not have a more 

specific primary purpose that is inconsistent with the 

listed exemplars.” Avenues I, 178 F.3d at 1244; see also 

Case: 15-1866 Document: 56-2 Page: 17 Filed: 08/24/2016
18 OTTER PRODUCTS, LLC v. US

Victoria’s Secret, 769 F.3d at 1108 (“[E]ven if the merchandise at issue contains certain features shared by 

those listed in a heading, the presence of other features in 

the merchandise ‘as a whole’ may negate similarity.”). 

Applying this precedent, the Court of International Trade

found that the subject merchandise has a specific and 

primary purpose that is inconsistent with the named 

exemplars: “that the enclosed electronic device remains 

fully functional.” Otter Products, 70 F. Supp. 3d at 1291. 

In other words, while the listed exemplars hold items and 

do not permit use of the enclosed item, the cases are 

specifically designed to hold and protect an electronic 

device while it remains 100% functional. The court found 

that this characteristic is inconsistent with the purposes 

of the exemplars in Heading 4202 and therefore distinguishes the subject merchandise from those exemplars. 

The government argues that the Court of International Trade “erroneously and impermissibly added a new 

factor to this Court’s four factor ejusdem generis analysis 

for Heading 4202, i.e., a requirement that a ‘contained’ 

article must be removed for use.” Appellant Br. 14. 

According to the government, the Court of International 

Trade “ignored” the fact that some camera cases and 

binocular cases permit use of the enclosed item.” Id. at 

16. But the Court of International Trade considered the 

government’s arguments and found that they “miss the 

point.” Otter Products, 70 F. Supp. 3d at 1294. Although 

the government cited two Customs rulings classifying an 

underwater camera case as a “similar container,” the 

Court of International Trade explained that camera cases 

are “eo nomine listed unlike electronic device cases and 

neither of these rulings discuss the four uniting essential 

characteristics or purposes of heading 4202, HTSUS.” Id. 

Accordingly, the government’s attempts to rely on nonbinding Customs rulings that do not pertain to the merchandise at issue are unpersuasive.

Case: 15-1866 Document: 56-2 Page: 18 Filed: 08/24/2016
OTTER PRODUCTS, LLC v. US 19

The Court of International Trade correctly considered 

whether the obvious purpose of the cases at issue differed 

from the purposes of those expressly listed. That consideration did not impose a fifth characteristic, as the government contends; it simply completed the appropriate 

analysis, which requires a comparison of “purpose.” 

Again, we find no error in the court’s analysis.

C. Classification under Subheading 3926.90.99

The Court of International Trade held that, because 

the subject merchandise cannot be classified under Heading 4202, it should be classified according to its material. 

The court then determined that the proper classification 

is subheading 3926.90.99: “[o]ther articles of plastics.” Id.

at 1295. The government does not challenge the Court of 

International Trade’s conclusion that, if the subject cases 

are not classified in Heading 4202, they are properly 

classified in subheading 3926.90.99.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment 

of the Court of International Trade in which the court 

classified the subject merchandise imported by OtterBox 

under subheading 3926.90.9980 of the HTSUS. 

AFFIRMED

Case: 15-1866 Document: 56-2 Page: 19 Filed: 08/24/2016