Extract
Corning Glass Works, Appellant V. U.S. International Trade Commission, Appellee, Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd., Sumitomo Electric U.S.A., Inc., Intervenors, 799 F.2d 1559 (1986)
Appeal No. 85-2632
799 F.2d 1559(Decided August 27, 1986)Kenneth B. Herman and Lars I. Kulleseid, of Fish & Neave, New York, New York, argued for appellant. With them on the brief were Daniel M. Gantt and Thomas J. Vetter. Alfred L. Michaelsen, Corning Glass Works, Corning, New York, of counsel.Wayne W. Herrington, Office of the General Counsel of Washington, D.C., argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Lyn M. Schlitt, General Counsel and Michael P. Mabile, Assistant General Counsel.Italo H. Ablondi, of Ablondi & Foster, P.C., Washington, D.C., and George T. Mobille, of Cushman, Darby & Cushman, Washington, D.C. argued for intervenors.With them on the brief were F. David Foster and Sturgis M. Sobin, of Ablondi & Foster, P.C. and Robert W. Adams, of Cushman, Darby & Cushman.Appealed from: U.S. International Trade Commission.Before NIES, BISSELL and ARCHER, Circuit Judges.NIES, Circuit Judge.Corning Glass Works appeals from the International Trade Commission's determination that the importation and sale of certain optical waveguide fibers manufactured in Japan by Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd. (SEI) and sold in the United States by Sumitomo Electric U.S.A., Inc. (SEUSA) (collectively Sumitomo) did not violate section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. ~ 1337 (1982).1 Although the subject imports were found to infringe Corning's U.S. Patent No. 3,659,915 covering certain optical waveguide fibers and to have been made abroad using a process claimed in Corning's U.S. Patent No. 3,933,454 covering a flame hydrolysis method for making optical waveguide fibers, the Commission found no effect or tendency to substantially injure a domestic industry within the meaning of section 337 because the quantity of imports had been, and were likely to remain, de minimis. Corning asserts that the Commission has misinterpreted the statutory injury requirement and erred in its findings of facts on this issue. Our jurisdiction over the appeal is found in 19 U.S.C. ~ 1337(c) (1982) and ...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
