This website uses cookies. For more information please contact us or consult our privacy policy.

Your binder contains too many pages, the maximum is 40.

We are unable to add this page to your binder, please try again later.

This page has been added to your binder.

Alexander Chinoy
Alexander D. Chinoy
Partner
Washington +1 202 662 5559 achinoy@cov.com Download V-card

Alexander Chinoy assists clients with the resolution of international intellectual property and trade disputes, appearing before a range of U.S. courts and agencies. He is an accomplished trade litigator who has been involved in more than 30 Section 337 unfair import investigations before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), as well as a range of enforcement and regulatory matters involving U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the U.S. Department of Commerce.

ITC Trial Experience

  • Hemostatic Products, Inv. No. 337-TA-913
  • Silicon Microphone Packages, Inv. No. 337-TA-888
  • Digital Media Devices, USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-882
  • Silicon Microphone Packages, Inv. No. 337-TA-825
  • Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities, Inv. No. 337-TA-800
  • Electronic Devices, Including Handheld Wireless Communications Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-673
  • Video Game Machines and Related Three-Dimensional Pointing Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-658
  • Certain Flash Memory Controllers, Drives, Memory Cards and Media Players, USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-619
  • Switches, Inv. No. 337-TA-589
  • Automated Mechanical Truck Transmission Systems, Inv. No. 337-TA-503 (violation and enforcement hearings)
  • Home Vacuum Packaging Machines, Inv. No. 337-TA-496 (temporary exclusion order hearing)

Other Notable ITC Investigations

  • Light-Emitting Diodes, Inv. No. 337-TA- 785 / 798
  • Vaginal Ring Birth Control Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-768
  • Wireless Communication Devices and Systems, Inv. No. 337-TA-775
  • Bassinet Products, Inv. No. 337-TA-597
  • Hard Disk Drives, Inv. No. 337-TA-616
  • Agricultural Tractors, Inv. No. 337-TA-486
  • Breath Test Systems for the Detection of Gastrointestinal Disorders, Inv. No. 337-TA-495
  • Display Controllers and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-481/491 (Enforcement)

Other Notable Trade Matters

  • Intercontinental Marble Corp. v. United States, 98-cv-2961 (Court Int’l Trade), on appeal, No. 03-1555 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed. Circuit). Represented Plaintiff Intercontinental Marble (ICM) in challenging CBP’s classification of ICM’s stone products as geological limestone, rather than commercial marble, under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTSUS). ICM obtained a favorable summary judgment from the CIT that its products were properly classified as marble under the HTSUS. The United States appealed to the Federal Circuit. Following briefing and argument, the CAFC rejected the Government’s appeal and affirmed the CIT’s decision.
  • Corn Products International, Inc. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/04/1. Represented claimant Corn Products in arbitration before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), under Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Corn Products challenged the Government of Mexico’s expropriatory tax levied on high fructose corn syrup.

Pro Bono

  • Former Employees of BMC Software, Inc. v. United States Secretary of Labor, 04-cv-229 (Court of International Trade).  Represented displaced software workers who were adversely impacted by foreign trade, in an action challenging the Department of Labor’s determination of the workers’ eligibility for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) benefits.  Obtained certification of full eligibility for the workers following a CIT remand to the Department of Labor, and an order directing the United States to pay attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, as a result of its failure to initially certify the workers.
  • Ibrahim v. District of Columbia, et al., No. 05-5370 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit).  Appeared on behalf of court-appointed amicus curiae in a Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) matter, and argued the case in appellant’s favor.  The Court ruled that appellant met the PLRA’s “imminent danger of serious physical injury” exception for litigious inmates, and was entitled to proceed in forma pauperis.  The Court reversed the district court’s dismissal of appellant’s case, and remanded the matter for further proceedings on the merits.

Memberships and Affiliations

  • ITC Trial Lawyers Association, Past President
  • ABA Intellectual Property Section's ITC Committee
  • Intellectual Property Owners Association ITC Committee 
  • IAM Patent 1000 - The World’s Leading Patent Practitioners (2015)  
  • Legal 500 US, Patent Litigation: International Trade Commission (2014-2015)