GoPro Housings Not 'Camera Parts,' DOJ Argues at Trade Court

GoPro Camera housings are properly classified as cases under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 4202 rather than parts, the government continued to argue during March 15 oral arguments at the Court of International Trade. The arguments were meant to address GoPro's September motion for judgment (see 2208080041) and the government's response (see 2212140060).

Both sides cited the Encyclopedia of Photography in defining "cases" and "housings." GoPro lawyer Alena Eckhardt pointed to photography supply stores and magazines that do not list housings, like those used with the GoPro models, as cases. "Camera cases" described for "field use" simply means that cases for extended field use tend to be of more rugged construction than those used by amateur photographers, not that the camera can take pictures while in its case, she said.

Edward Kenny argued for DOJ that a camera case design could allow a camera to actually be used while still in the case. Judge Timothy Reif pressed Kenny on the issue, asking if there was any instance "where you would actually be filming with the case on, as in the case of the subject merchandise?" Kenny cited examples of cases that could be partially opened for taking pictures.

Eckhardt argued that the GoPro housings were "completely different." In that case, the camera is "fully enclosed in the housing" at the time that pictures are taken and that various features of the GoPro housings allowed "100% functionality" of the camera.

When addressing the issue of whether the housing was a camera "part," Kenny said the government agreed that the GoPro was designed to be used with the HERO Cameras. "That doesn't discount or obviate the idea that those housings or camera cases, whatever we want to call them, are a separate and distinct commercial entity themselves," Kenny said.