Practice Banner
Back to International Disputes

International Trade Litigation

International Trade Litigation
Overview Representations Partners News

The most successful multinational businesses know that international trade can optimize supply chains and offer access to untapped markets. Understanding the rules of global trade—and how to use them—can make the difference to your company’s trade or customs disputes, to the protection of your company’s reputation and brand, and to your company’s bottom line.

Global trade is governed by a complex and dynamic system of both national and international laws, which are influenced by political and commercial interests. Our team of international trade lawyers offer you outstanding strategies and solutions.

Members of our International Trade Litigation Group have represented large multinational corporations, regional trade organizations, and governments, and served in senior political advisory roles. We offer more than mere technical regulatory advice. And as tried and tested litigators, our reputation telegraphs clearly that we will never back down from a fight.  We are prepared litigate for our clients’ interests in any forum around the world.

We offer the following services to our clients:

  • Anti-dumping and countervailing duties (AD/CVD) and other trade remedies
    We represent both Petitioners and Respondents in trade remedies actions in the United States and around the world. We prioritize building ironclad administrative records to give our clients an edge when enforcing or challenging government agency determinations.

    In the United States, we represent clients in trade remedies cases before the U.S. International Trade Commission, the U.S. Department of Commerce, and the U.S. Trade Representative, as well as the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 
  • Customs litigation and audits
    We represent businesses in litigation involving U.S. Customs rulings, including valuation and classification rulings, to ensure your global transaction costs stay as low as possible. We also provide boots-on-the-ground counsel when Customs audits threaten to expose unknown liabilities.

    In addition to defending our clients in unexpected audits, we help our clients pro-actively manage global compliance risk with Quinn Emanuel’s Complementarity AnalysisTM and PAIRTM Programs. Utilizing Complementarity AnalysisTM members of Quinn Emanuel’s International Trade Litigation and Policy group provide clients with expert counsel on how to harmonize business models with local regulations, politics, customs, and traditions to leverage economic, supply chain, and regulatory policy efficiencies. Our lawyers also offer clients multi-disciplined, company-specific PAIRTM Programs—Plan Anticipate Integrate Respond—to develop global life, safety, property preservation, and business continuity programs for international operations, which are launched in close cooperation with internal personnel and external interlocutors. While these strategies and programs ideally should be designed with clients well before an unforeseen lawsuit or crisis unfolds, we are experienced in addressing and solving any immediate challenge.
  • International trade dispute settlement
    We represent governments and corporations in international trade dispute settlement proceedings. We have experience bringing and defending cases before the World Trade Organization dispute settlement body and NAFTA tribunals.

  • Trade Agreement Negotiations
    Our lawyers have broad experience representing countries in a number of high profile international trade negotiations, including the accessions of Vietnam and China to the World Trade Organization, the negotiations of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, and the current NAFTA renegotiation. Whether the negotiations concern goods market access, trade remedies, services, or complex disciplines like those on technical barriers to trade and sanitary and phytosanitary measures, our lawyers know how to transform ambitious objectives into concrete realities.
  • Economic and trade sanctions
    We represent clients facing high-stakes investigations and prosecution in connection with U.S. economic and trade sanctions. We advise on matters related to cross-border transfers of sensitive information and materials, as well as liabilities arising out of business transactions with sanctioned individuals and entities.

  • Cyber espionage
    Cyber theft of trade secrets can happen at any time. Multinational businesses are always at risk. In conjunction with our Crisis Law team, we help our clients manage the initial fallout of cyber espionage and relentlessly pursue those who attempt to benefit from stolen knowledge. Our experts can uncover the source of even the most complicated cyber attacks, allowing our experienced lawyers to conduct evidence-based litigation to achieve the best results for our clients.

  • National security issues
    We represent clients whose international businesses are at the core of the national security interests of governments. We advise on compliance issues and policy, as well as special government investigations directed at national security concerns.

  • Global trade policy
    Leveraging decades of experience advocating for trade policy issues in Washington, D.C., Geneva and Brussels, and boots-on-the-ground operational and legal experience throughout the globe, our lawyers understand and can address rapidly and comprehensively the seismic shifts in policy that can impact our clients’ interests. We work to keep law- and policy-makers informed and stay ahead of the curve so that our clients are prepared for any development.

You play to win—so do we.

Recent Representations

  • In the Matter of Certain Vaporizer Devices, Cartridges Used Therewith, And Components Thereof, U.S.I.T.C. Inv. No. 337-TA-1368 (2025). We represented Juul Labs Inc. (“JLI”) in an ITC investigation involving assertion of JLI patents against Altria and NJOY.  After a one-week hearing in front of ALJ Johnson Hines, we obtained an initial determination finding a violation of all four asserted JLI patents.  On Jan. 30, 2025, the ITC Commission affirmed the ultimate violation finding and issued an exclusion order against the importation of infringing goods.
  • Allscripts Healthcare, LLC v. DR/Decision Resources, LLC d/b/a Decision Resources Group, et al. (D. Mass 2022).We successfully defended a client against claims for breach of contract and trade secret misappropriation.  The plaintiff sought $160 million dollars in damages plus trebling, but the jury awarded just $1 on breach of contract and found our client did not engage in trade secret misappropriation. 
  • In the Matter of Certain Magnetic Tape Cartridges and Components Thereof No. 337-TA-1058 (ITC 2019).  We represented Sony in a multifront battle against Fujifilm arising from Fujifilm’s anticompetitive conduct seeking to exclude Sony from the Linear Tape-Open magnetic tape market.  LTO tape products are used to store large quantities of data by companies in a wide range of industries, including health care, education, finance and banking.  Sony filed a complaint in the ITC seeking an exclusion order of Fujifilm’s products based on its infringement of three Sony patents covering various aspects of magnetic data storage technology.  In August 2018, the ALJ issued the initial determination finding multiple Section 337 violations by Fujifilm, and in March 2019 the full Commission of the ITC affirmed Sony’s victory in all respects and issued exclusion orders barring Fujifilm’s magnetic tape products from being imported into the US.
  • Our client faced a critical moment: the U.S. government announced that its customers would no longer be eligible to apply for importation of its goods.  Our advice to the client – contrary to the convention wisdom – was not to accept that it would have to forego access to the U.S. market.  Instead, we engaged with the relevant stakeholders to demonstrate that the situation faced by our client, and its customers, was neither legally necessary nor practically desirable.  Our engagement worked.  Not only are our client’s customers eligible to seek importation of our client’s goods, but the process to seek importation was substantially improved as well, thus facilitating the relationship between our client and its customers (both existing and potential). 
  • Bell Supply Company, LLC v. United States No. 1:14-cv-00066-CRK (Federal Circuit 2018). We represented U. S. Steel in a case involving an effort to escape tariffs on oil country tubular goods (“OCTG”) from the People’s Republic of China by “finishing” the product in a third country. We obtained a favorable reversal from the Federal Circuit of an adverse order from the Court of International Trade.
  • We are advising a Fortune 10 company on the international trade law implications of the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
  • Bell Supply Company, LLC v. United States and Boomerang Tube LLC, et al., Case No. 14-00066 (Federal Circuit 2017).  We represent United States Steel Corporation in its appeal to reinstate Commerce’s determination in its Final Scope Ruling and First Remand Determination that found green tubes and other unfinished OCTG are within the scope of AD and CVD orders, including when finished in other various countries. 
  • Husteel Co., Ltd., et al., v. United States, et al., and United States Steel Corporation, Case No. 16-2732 (Federal Circuit 2017).  We represent United States Steel Corporation in its appeal of the CIT’s procedurally improper remand of Commerce’s Final Determination, which had applied “as available” CV profit information to determine that the domestic market was injured by dumped OCTG goods from South Korea.
  • Certain Corrosion Resistant Steel Products from Taiwan, Administrative Review No. A-583-856 (Department of Commerce 2017). We represent United States Steel Corporation in its request to review companies alleged to have sold subject merchandise into the United States at less than fair value.
  • Certain Corrosion Resistant Steel Products from the Republic of Korea, Administrative Review No. A-580-878 (Department of Commerce 2017).  We represent United States Steel Corporation’s interests in the administrative review of the largest producers and exporters of subject merchandise.
  • Certain Corrosion Resistant Steel Products from the Republic of Korea, Administrative Review No. C-580-879 (Department of Commerce 2017).  We represent United States Steel Corporation in petitioning Commerce and advocating that it continue to apply antidumping duty rates consistent with the as available statistics on samples of producers and exporters.
  • Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from India, Administrative Review. A-533-863 (Department of Commerce 2017).  We represent United States Steel Corporation, including responding to questionnaires submitted by foreign exporters to ensure there are no statistical inaccuracies.
  • Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Products, Inv. No. 337-TA-1002 (International Trade Commission 2016). While hiring our firm to handle many of its anti-dumping and countervailing duty matters, United States Steel Corporation also enlisted us to devise new and innovative responses to foreign steel companies’ unfair trade actions.  True to that charge, we filed a revolutionary Section 337 action against the eleven largest Chinese steel companies.  Although the ITC had not instituted an antitrust action since the late 1970s and QE is not aware of any Section 337 case based on the cyber-theft of trade secrets (voluntarily withdrawn), the ITC voted unanimously in May 2016 to institute an investigation. See Notice of Institution of Investigation, Doc. No. 582305, Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Products, Inv. No. 337-TA-1002 (U.S.I.T.C. May 26, 2016). We await the ITC’s ruling on the order by the ALJ terminating the investigation.
  • Certain Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Japan and Romania, Third Sunset Review, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-847 and 849 (International Trade Commission 2017). We successfully represented United States Steel Corporation in its victory over Romanian respondents by persuading the Commission that the revocation of antidumping duty orders would likely lead to material injury.  As a result, the existing antidumping duty orders remained in place.
  • Certain Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Japan and Romania, Second Sunset Review, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-847 and 849 (International Trade Commission).  We successfully represented United States Steel Corporation throughout a five-year review to determine if large-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan would cause the continuation of material injury under section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.
  • Certain Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe (Under 4 1/2 Inches) from Japan, Five-Year Review (Third Review), Case No. A-588-851 (Department of Commerce 2016). We successfully represented United States Steel Corporation in providing the statistical and legal analysis that lead the Department of Commerce to find Japan and Romania likely to injure the domestic market without a continuation of antidumping orders.
  • United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from Korea (World Trade Organization 2017). We represented the United States in complex consultations and thereafter before a panel requested by Korea pursuant to the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994). The panel did not uphold 14 and did not consider 5 of Korea’s 22 claims against the United States.
  • Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Russian Federation, Administrative Review No. A-821-809 (Department of Commerce 2017). We successfully represented United States Steel Corporation’s interests in challenging Russian  respondents’ attempts to make unsolicited changes to the home market and U.S. sales databases in order to avoid calculating a margin for the record.
  • Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Russian Federation, Investigation No. 731-TA-808 (Third Review) (International Trade Commission 2016). We successfully represented United States Steel Corporation in showing that significant capacity to produce hot-rolled steel in Russia remained such that increased exports to the United States would occur and cause material injury if revocation of antidumping duty orders were to occur.
  • Husteel Co., Ltd. et al. v. United States and Maverick Tube Corp., Consol. Court No. 14-00215 (Court of International Trade 2016). We successfully represented United States Steel Corporation in this  decision by Commerce to sustain Commerce’s Remand Results based on the as available financial statements and information from the two sources.
  • American Tubular Products, LLC and Jiangsu Chengde Steel Tube Share Co., Ltd., v. United States and United States Steel Corporation, TMK IPSCO, Wheatland Tube Company, and V&M Star L.P., Court No. 13-00029 (Court of International Trade 2015). We successfully represented United States Steel Corporation before  the CIT, which sustained the remand results of an administrative review of an antidumping duty order on Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the People’s Republic of China. We defended the Court’s decision to choose the best available value for nonmarket economy merchandise.
  • Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Brazil, Inv. No. A-351-843 (Department of Commerce 2016). We successfully represented United States Steel Corporation in this anti-dumping investigation wherein Commerce found that cold-rolled steel from Brazil, India, Korea, and the United Kingdom was being sold for less-than-fair value and the ITC ruled that these imports materially injured the domestic industry. As a result, Commerce issued antidumping duty (AD) orders.