## Facts

- Goss International Corporation, a U.S. printing-press manufacturer, sued Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd. and TKS (U.S.A.), Inc. (collectively, TKS) under the Antidumping Act of 1916 for selling presses in the United States at unfairly low prices.
- In December 2003, a jury returned a verdict for Goss and awarded more than $35 million in damages and prejudgment interest.
- TKS pursued appellate review; the judgment was affirmed, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari.
- During the U.S. litigation, Japan enacted a Special Measures Law permitting Japanese companies to seek reimbursement in Japan from parties who obtained 1916 Act judgments.
- The parties stipulated that TKS would not file a Japanese action under the Special Measures Law until after exhausting U.S. appeals and giving Goss 14 days’ notice.
- After certiorari was denied, TKS gave notice it intended to file the Japanese “clawback” action; Goss moved for preliminary and permanent anti-suit injunctions to prevent the filing.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal district court may enjoin a party from filing a foreign action designed to recoup or negate the practical effect of a final U.S. judgment.
2. Whether the requirements for injunctive relief (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of harms, and public interest) were satisfied.
3. Whether international comity concerns outweighed the forum’s interest in protecting the integrity and enforceability of its judgment.

## Decision

- The court granted injunctive relief and enjoined TKS from initiating the contemplated Japanese action under the Special Measures Law against Goss.
- The court found the threatened foreign proceeding was aimed at undoing the benefit of a final U.S. judgment obtained after full litigation and appellate review.
- The court concluded that comity concerns did not preclude relief because the injunction was directed at the parties before the court and was limited to the clawback proceeding that would frustrate the U.S. judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Federal courts may enjoin litigants from pursuing foreign proceedings when necessary to protect the court’s jurisdiction, the finality and enforceability of its judgments, or strong domestic policies reflected in the judgment.
- An anti-suit injunction is more likely where the foreign action would effectively nullify or materially impair a final domestic judgment, rather than merely proceed in parallel on distinct issues.
- In assessing injunctive relief, courts weigh likelihood of success, irreparable harm (including harm to the value and enforceability of a judgment), relative hardships, and the public interest.
- International comity is a significant consideration but may yield when a narrowly tailored injunction is needed to prevent a foreign proceeding from defeating a final U.S. adjudication.

## Conclusion

The court enjoined TKS from filing a Japanese clawback suit because it would undermine the practical effect of a final U.S. antidumping judgment, and the equitable factors—together with the forum’s interest in preserving judgment finality—outweighed comity concerns where the order was limited to restraining the parties from that specific foreign action.


Goss Int'l Corp. v. Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd., 435 F. Supp. 2d 919 (N.D. Iowa 2006)