Animal Science Products, Inc. v. China Minmetals Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a statutory requirement in the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act “does not speak in jurisdictional terms or refer in any way to the jurisdiction of the district courts,” and thus, is a substantive merits limitation rather than a jurisdictional requirement
• overruling two Third Circuit precedents that conflicted with Supreme Court case law
• district court is not permitted to make independent findings of fact when deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion
• “[T]he import trade or commerce [exclusion] requires that the defendants’ conduct target import goods or services.”
• “The FTAIA neither speaks in jurisdictional terms nor refers in any way to the jurisdiction of the district courts.”
• “Assessed through the lens of Arbaugh’s ‘clearly states’ test, the FTAIA’s language must be interpreted as imposing a substantive merits limitation rather than a jurisdictional bar.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).