1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Initial Loading of Critical Software May Not Always Define Country of Origin

Initial Loading of Critical Software May Not Always Define Country of Origin

Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.10.13

On April 3, 2013, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued two final determinations on the country of origin for complex electronic equipment which demonstrate the role that loading of U.S.-origin system software or firmware can play in identifying the country of origin under the substantial transformation test applicable to the Trade Agreements Act. In Country of Origin of Ultrasound Systems (a matter handled by Crowell & Moring), CBP concluded that the country of origin was the U.S. despite an initial system software load to the electronics module in China, when complex components from multiple countries subsequently were combined in the U.S. along with the download of the final system software, whereas in Country of Origin of HP LaserJet Enterprise 500 Color M551 Printer and Fax Machine, CBP concluded that loading U.S.-origin firmware along with a simple (7-minute) final assembly operation in Mexico did not substantially transform the complex LaserJet printer components and subassemblies manufactured in China, resulting in China being the country of origin.


Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights