Photo of Hwan Kim

Hwan Kim

Subscribe to Hwan Kim's Posts

Hwan Kim is a partner in the Corporate Practice Group in the firm's Washington, D.C. office. He also serves as a leader of the firm's International Litigation and Arbitration Team.

Follow:Read more about Hwan KimHwan's Facebook Profile

관세 환급의 길을 열다

On November 28, 2025, Costco filed a lawsuit against the United States seeking refunds for tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Several federal courts—including the Court of International Trade (CIT), the District Court for the District of Columbia (D.D.C.), and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) —have already ruled the IEEPA tariffs unlawful. The Supreme Court, now reviewing the issue in the consolidated V.O.S. Selections case, heard arguments in November and is expected to issue its decision in the coming months.Continue Reading Unlocking Duty Refunds: How Korean Multinationals Can Benefit from Costco’s International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) Challenge

미국의 영업 비밀 소송 호황기

This is a boom time for trade secret litigation in the U.S. The underlying conditions driving the boom include the growing mobility of the global workforce, the ease with which electronic data can be captured and moved, the emergence of nation-state actors participating in the theft of information in the global marketplace, and the time-limited benefits and uncertainties of patent litigation. Also fueling this rise are the federalization of trade secret laws with the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), the extraterritorial application of such laws to acts committed outside the U.S., and the availability of robust legal remedies in the U.S. for trade secret misappropriation. For companies seeking remedy against trade secret misappropriation, the United States offers unparalleled advantages as a legal venue: extraterritorial application of its laws combined with a broad range of monetary remedies in U.S. District Courts and the powerful exclusion of goods at the border offered in U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) Section 337 proceedings. For international companies doing or planning to do business in the U.S., understanding the risks of lawsuit is now critical.Continue Reading The Proliferation of Trade Secret Misappropriation and U.S. Enforcement Choices

미국 영업비밀법의 치외법권적 효력

Following the Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in Motorola Solutions Inc. v. Hytera Communications Corp. Ltd., the United States may become a destination venue for resolution of global trade secret disputes. The Seventh Circuit held that U.S. trade secret law applies extraterritorially—reaching the theft of trade secrets outside the United States—so long as “an act in furtherance” of the offense was committed in the United States. The court held, for example, that marketing products in the United States qualified as an “act in furtherance” if the products were made using stolen trade secrets. Once an “act in furtherance” is identified, damages can be based on a company’s global sales. Motorola, for example, resulted in an award of $135.8 million in compensatory damages based on Hytera’s worldwide sales. Similar to the global impact of U.S. antitrust and anti-bribery laws, the Seventh Circuit’s decision highlights the critical importance to companies of considering U.S. trade secret laws. For example, if a company suffers the theft of its trade secrets anywhere in the world, it should consider the United States as a possible venue for bringing a legal claim. Conversely, companies should take measures to train employees and ensure compliance with U.S. trade secret laws even if the employees are located outside of the United States.Continue Reading Companies Should Take Notice of the Extraterritorial Reach of U.S. Trade Secret Law

한국어 번역문은 이곳을 클릭해주시기 바랍니다.

A recent California case may force companies doing business with foreign entities to reconsider—and maybe rewrite—their contracts. In Rockefeller Tech. Invs. (Asia) VII v. Changzhou Sinotype Tech. Co., No. B272170, 2018 WL 2455092 (Cal. App. June 1, 2018), the California Court of Appeal held that parties may not contract around the formal service requirements of the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents, commonly referred to as the Hague Service Convention. The decision could have profound implications for international business.Continue Reading Contracts with Foreign Companies May Require a Rewrite