Court Opinion

ID: 9839029
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-11 15:01:40.480421+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:16.298165
License: Public Domain

Slip Op. 23-130

                UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

 GOPRO, INC.

        Plaintiff,
                                              Before: Timothy M. Reif, Judge
 v.
                                              Court No. 20-00176
 UNITED STATES

        Defendant.

                            MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

      The following order concerns the challenge by plaintiff GoPro, Inc. (“plaintiff” or

“GoPro”) of the classification of subject merchandise by U.S. Customs and Border

Protection (“Customs”) of eight camera housing models under subheading

4202.99.9000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. The subject

merchandise encompasses GoPro’s eight models of camera housings (“camera

housings”) for use with GoPro’s HERO 3, HERO 3+, HERO 4 action cameras and

HERO 5, 6, 7 Black action cameras (“action cameras”).

      Below, the court identifies questions of material fact that are allegedly not in

dispute but as to which the opposing party has not admitted. In consideration of oral

argument, 1 record evidence and parties’ submissions to the court in support of their

cross-motions for summary judgment, the parties are ordered to file supplemental

1 Oral argument concerning the cross-motions for summary judgment for classification

of the subject merchandise was held on March 15, 2023. Oral Arg., ECF No. 46.
Court No. 20-00176                                                                 Page 2

briefing in response to the court’s questions concerning potential outstanding material

facts in dispute in the parties’ U.S. Court of International Trade (“USCIT”) Rule 56.3

Statements. See generally, Pl.’s Stmt. Facts (“Pl. Stmt. Facts”), ECF No. 29-1; Def.’s

Stmt. Facts (“Def. Stmt. Facts”), ECF No. 33; Def.’s Resp. Pl.’s Stmt. Facts (“Def. Resp.

Pl. Stmt. Facts”), ECF No. 33; Pl.’s Resp. Def. Stmt. Facts (“Pl. Resp. Def. Stmt.

Facts”), ECF No. 37-1; Pl.’s Reply Def.’s Resp. Pl.’s Stmt. Facts (“Pl. Reply Def. Resp.

Pl. Stmt. Facts”), ECF No. 37-3.

                                     BACKGROUND

       Plaintiff and defendant filed cross-motions for summary judgment in which each

states that there is “no genuine issue as to any material fact.” Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J. (“Pl.

Br.”) at 6, ECF No. 29 (citing USCIT R. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,

323 (1986); Def.’s Cross-Mot. Summ. J. (“Def. Br.”) at 13, ECF No. 33 (citing USCIT R.

56(c); 2 Celotex, 477 U.S. at 317, 322 (1986)). “The court shall grant summary judgment

if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the

movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” USCIT R. 56(a).

       The court concludes that each party’s disputes and denials with respect to the

other party’s USCIT Rule 56.3 Statement demonstrate that there may be outstanding

issues of material facts, despite parties’ repeated assertions to the contrary. Pl. Resp.

Def. Stmt. Facts at 1 (stating that “[a]lthough Plaintiff objects to some of the Defendant’s

statements in that they are immaterial or inaccurately reflect the record/the evidence

cited, nothing in Defendant’s Statement raises a genuine dispute as to any material fact

2 Plaintiff and defendant cite incorrectly to USCIT Rule 56(c) to support the standard for

summary judgment. Pl. Br. at 6; Def. Br. at 13. The court directs parties to USCIT Rule
56(a) as the apposite rule for summary judgment. USCIT R. 56(a).
Court No. 20-00176                                                                  Page 3

for the purposes of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.”); Def. Br. at 11. The

classification of subject merchandise is a fact-intensive inquiry for the court. See ADC

Telecommunications, Inc. v. United States, 916 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

(describing the two-step inquiry of classification of merchandise: “[the court] ascertain[s]

the meaning of the terms within the relevant tariff provision, which is a question of law,

and, second, [the court] determine[s] whether the subject merchandise fits within those

terms, which is a question of fact.”) (citing Sigma-Tau HealthSci., Inc. v. United States,

838 F.3d 1272, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The two-step inquiry “collapses into a question

of law” when there is no genuine dispute as to the nature of the subject merchandise.

LeMans Corp. v. United States, 660 F.3d 1311, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In the instant

action, the court directs parties to confirm their positions regarding the nature of the

subject merchandise to confirm that the action is ripe for summary judgment.

       Accordingly, parties are directed to: (A) come to an agreement on each fact

noted below that they state is “undisputed” and state clearly the undisputed fact; or (B)

state clearly that certain facts are not agreed and are disputed.

       The court notes finally that, with respect to each material fact discussed below,

the potential dispute raised by each party to the other’s Rule 56.3 Statement is not

sufficiently precise to understand the dispute as to a material fact or in some cases

even whether there is a genuine dispute. In this respect, the parties have not provided

the court with sufficient guidance in their respective Rule 56.3 Statements. 3

3 USCIT Rule 56.3 states in relevant part:

       On any motion for summary judgment filed pursuant to Rule 56, the factual
       positions described in Rule 56(c)(1)(A) must be annexed to the motion in a
       separate, short and concise statement, in numbered paragraphs, of the
Court No. 20-00176                                                                     Page 4

       Under USCIT Rule 56(e)(1), the court may offer parties an opportunity to address

facts that appear to remain outstanding on summary judgment. USCIT R. 56(e)(1) (“If a

party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another

party's assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the court may give an opportunity to

properly support or address the fact”). Accordingly, the court directs parties to answer

in a short and concise manner Questions 1, 2 and 3 below. For ease of reference, the

court directs parties to their initial submissions, responses and replies thereto to

highlight the potentially disputed fact before the court.

I.     Questions for parties concerning factual issues

Question 1: Do the camera housings feature lens coverings that obstruct or
inhibit use of the action camera as a camera when enclosed within the camera
housings?

       In its Rule 56.3 Statement, plaintiff states that the camera housings do not

feature a protective lens covering, a fact that the government denies in its response and

contradicts in its own Rule 56.3 Statement for its cross-motion for summary judgment:

       29. The Camera Housings do not feature a protective lens covering for
       storage or transport of the action camera. 4

       Government’s Response: Denies. See P-18 which states “The Camera
       Housings consist of a ridged plastic water- sealed shell made out of the
       polycarbonate, with hardened flat glass over the lens assembly.” The
       hardened flat glass is part of the protective container which protects the
       Hero Action Camera’s lens. Avers that GoPro also offers lens covers for
       the Standard housing based models and Dive Housing which not only

       material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine
       issue to be tried.

USCIT R. 56.3(a).
4 For purposes of this discussion, citations to the relevant paragraph number are

included and parties’ internal citations to record evidence have been omitted
throughout.
Court No. 20-00176                                                                 Page 5

      cover the housing lens but also obstructs the housings “pass-thru” “on”
      button, precluding any accidental activations during storage or transport.

      NO GENUINE DISPUTE – Plaintiff’s factual proposition that the Camera
      Housings do not feature a protective lens cover for storage and transport
      of action camera is uncontroverted. The government’s averred facts do
      nothing to controvert this factual assertion. With respect to lens cover, the
      government ignores record evidence that Lens Cover is an optional
      standalone accessory for one model of camera housing. Offered precisely
      because that housing’ lens assembly can be damaged in transport. It did
      not ship with the products at issue in this lawsuit.

Pl. Reply Def. Resp. Pl. Stmt. Facts at ¶ 29.5

Question 2: Is the action camera functional as a camera (photography and
videography purposes) while within the camera housing?

      Plaintiff and defendant, respectively, use the terms “fully functional” and “retain[s]

100% functionality” and then disagree on what it means for the action camera to be

“fully functional” or to “retain 100% functionality” inside the camera housings. The

question to which the court seeks an answer is whether the camera is “functional as a

camera (photography and videography purposes) while within the camera housing”:

      32. The GoPro HERO action camera remains fully functional while housed
      inside the Camera Housing, so that it may be used while inside the
      housing.

      Government’s Response: Denies. The Hero Action cameras do not retain
      100% functionality when inserted into the GoPro waterproof housings. The
      Hero Action cameras without the housings have capabilities of great
      image quality and great audio quality. When the Hero Action cameras are
      inserted in the GoPro waterproof housings, the audio quality is degraded

5 Defendant submitted a separate Rule 56.3 Statement to support its cross-motion for

summary judgment, which features a directly contradictory fact, controverted by plaintiff
in its response thereto:

      36. The GoPro Housings have covers which both cover the lens and the
      power button on the housings which have the power button and lens on
      the front of the housings, i.e., the Dive Housing, Wrist Housing, Camo
      Housing, Standard Housing and Skeleton Housing.

Pl. Resp. Def. Stmt. Facts at ¶ 36.
Court No. 20-00176                                                                Page 6

      and muffled. Improved audio quality is one of the reasons GoPro came up
      with the Skeleton Housing, which is the only housing at issue which is not
      waterproof mainly because it has ports (holes) and cut-outs in the sides
      and back of the housing. Further, when a Hero camera is placed inside
      the tight-fitting GoPro housing, the camera heats up when operating as it
      is fairly power hungry. While a heat sink on the camera housing helps
      dissipate heat buildup, the camera sealed inside the waterproof housing
      can overheat under certain conditions resulting in a shutdown.
      Additionally, once the Hero Action camera is enclosed in a GoPro
      waterproof housing there is no access to the camera’s HDMI and
      microphone ports, which are preferable for media or TV and movie
      production. For these reasons the Hero action camera does not retain
      100% functionality when enclosed in the GoPro Waterproof Housings.

      NO GENUINE DISPUTE – The government factual assertion that the
      GoPro action camera is not fully functional when enclosed in the GoPro
      waterproof housing misstates record evidence. The cited evidence does
      not support the fact that the audio performance is “degraded” and does
      not deliver acceptable performance when the action camera is enclosed in
      the waterproof housing during intended extreme activities. The record
      evidence shows that the Skeleton housing is only recommended where
      IMPROVED audio is desirable, i.e., professional media applications where
      access to the HDMI/Mic ports is preferred. The cited evidence also does
      not support the asserted fact that the camera is susceptible to overheating
      while enclosed in the housing any more than any other consumer
      electronic device (i.e., cell phone or laptop) under the direct sunlight and
      no airflow. The government does not (and cannot) dispute that the GoPro
      action camera is fully functional when enclosed in the Camera Housings at
      issue in this litigation during filming in active environments as intendeds –
      it is waterproof, shockproof, mountable, captures great video and
      acceptable audio.

Pl. Reply Def. Resp. Pl. Stmt. Facts at ¶ 32.

Question 3(a): Are the spring buttons 6 on the camera housing designed to
resist, to some degree, pressure so as to minimize accidental turning on or
off of the camera?

6 In their Rule 56.3 Statements and briefs, parties refer interchangeably to the buttons

on the camera housings as “spring-loaded buttons,” “press-thru” buttons, “pass-through
button plungers” and “exposed functional button assemblies.” Pl. Resp. Br. at 5; Def.
Stmt. Facts ¶¶ 35, 11. The court uses the term “spring buttons” to refer to the feature
on the camera housings to which parties refer as the buttons on the camera housings
that correspond to the power and functional buttons on the action cameras.
Court No. 20-00176                                                                     Page 7

Question 3(b): Do the spring buttons on the camera housing correspond to
the buttons on the action camera both to enable the user to turn the
camera on while it is in the housing and to provide some degree of
protection to the camera?

Question 3(c): Are the parties in agreement with the following statement: if
the camera housings were to be used as the primary storage solution for
the action camera, the spring buttons could be fouled by dirt and grime?

       Plaintiff and defendant dispute the degree to which the buttons on the

camera housings are affected by the environment in which they are used:

       35. The resistance of the springs of the housing’s “press-thru” buttons
       which control some of the camera’s functions were tested to ensure the
       buttons were capable of “resist[ing] accidental presses”.

       Plaintiff disputes this assertion as stated with respect to the
       characterization [sic] the product and marketing requirements regarding
       resistance of the housing’s buttons. . . . Regardless, the asserted fact is
       immaterial. It is undisputed that “If the Camera Housing were to be used
       as the primary storage solution, the user would risk scratching the
       lens assembly and the action camera could be rendered unusable. Also,
       the entire camera optical system is subject to damage if dropped on the
       lens glass while in the housing. Similarly, if the Camera Housing were to
       be used as the primary storage solution, the exposed functional button
       assemblies could be fouled by dirt and grime and, if bumped, the buttons
       could inadvertently power the camera on, or actuate the shutter,
       consuming the battery and valuable microSD memory card storage space.
       To the contrary, camera cases are specifically designed to protect both
       cameras and lenses alike from all of the above.”

Pl. Resp. Def. Stmt. Facts ¶ 35 (quoting Pl. Stmt. Facts ¶ 38).7

       Both parties’ responses and replies to the respective opposing party’s

statements of fact in the quoted excerpts above from party submissions are

7 Plaintiff cites to its own Rule 56.3 Statement of Facts, claiming that the fact is

“undisputed.” Pl. Reply Def. Resp. Pl. Stmt. Facts ¶ 38. The court notes that plaintiff’s
characterization that this fact is “undisputed” is inaccurate: defendant denies this fact in
its response to plaintiff’s statement, stating, “denies that the buttons would likely be
fouled by dirt and grime.” Def. Resp. Pl. Stmt. Facts ¶ 38.
Court No. 20-00176                                                                 Page 8

referenced along with the court’s questions to provide guidance to parties so that

they may avoid repeating themselves in their answers.

                                     CONCLUSION

       In the absence of adequate guidance through Rule 56.3 Statements and

contradictory assertions from both parties therein, the court directs parties to address

through their answers to the foregoing questions whether there are any outstanding

material facts in dispute or whether the instant action is ripe for summary judgment.

       Accordingly, it is hereby

       ORDERED that each party file within 30 days of this order a responsive

supplemental USCIT Rule 56.3 Statement in response to the court’s questions.

       ORDERED that each supplemental responsive statement is limited to 200 words

per question for each party.

       SO ORDERED.

                                                             /s/     Timothy M. Reif
                                                                      Judge

Dated: September 11, 2023
      New York, New York