American Tel. & Tel. v. US INTERN. TRADE COM'N
| Decision Date | 26 March 1980 |
| Docket Number | Appeal No. 80-14. |
| Citation | 626 F.2d 841 |
| Parties | AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Western Electric Company, Incorporated and Nassau Recycle Corporation, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION and Southwire Company, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
Edward Dreyfus, Bernard Zucker, New York City, Western Electric Co., Inc., Edwin B. Cave, New Providence, N.J., Thomas Heyman, Watson, Leavenworth, Kelton & Taggart, New York City, for American Telephone & Telegraph et al.
Jeffrey S. Neeley, Washington, D.C., International Trade Commission, for United States International Trade Commission.
Harvey Kaye, George H. Spencer, Sheldon I. Landsman, Deborah S. Strauss, Spencer & Kaye, Washington, D.C., Peter Stahlmann, Harrison, N.Y., Krupp International etc., for Fried. Krupp GmbH et al.
Victor M. Wigman, Herbert Cohen, George C. Myers, Jr., Wigman & Cohen, Arlington, Va., for Southwire Company.
Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN and MILLER, Associate Judges.
This matter comes before us on Southwire Company's (Southwire) Motion to Dismiss * American Telephone and Telegraph Company (Bell) et al.'s appeal from the United States International Trade Commission's (ITC) determination of November 23, 1979, In the Matter of Certain Apparatus for the Continuous Production of Copper Rod, Investigation No. 337-TA-52. The ITC concluded that Bell had not violated 19 U.S.C. § 1337.
OPINIONBell is not a "person adversely affected" by the Commission's final determination. The statute gives the ITC authority to make determinations of "whether or not there is a violation of this section." (19 U.S.C. § 1337(c)). Appeals to this court can be taken from such "determinations" only by those who are "adversely affected" thereby. Dicta, findings of fact and the like are not determinations within the meaning of the statute. The ITC's findings of which Bell complains are not determinations within the meaning of the statute. Contrary to Bell's arguments improperly raised from Refractarios Monterrey v. Ferro, 606 F.2d 966, 203 USPQ 568 (1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 943, 100 S.Ct. 1338, 63 L.Ed.2d 776 (1980), this court will consider evidentiary matters associated with statutory final determinations, but this court does not accept appeal upon those "associated matters." Since the ITC determined that there was no § 1337 violation by Bell, Bell is without standing to appeal. Tong Seae v. ITC, No. 79-38 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Akzo N.V. v. U.S. Intern. Trade Com'n
...Accordingly, we have reviewed the merits of the confidentiality actions. See American Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. U.S. International Trade Commission, 626 F.2d 841, 842, 206 USPQ 111, 112 (CCPA 1980).16 That appeal was argued on November 7, 1986 before the same panel of judges as heard t......
-
Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. v. Intern. Trade Com'n
...the Commission's finding of non-infringement made the alleged infringer the prevailing party); Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 67 C.C.P.A. 165, 626 F.2d 841, 842 (C.C.P.A.1980) 6. Fuji did in fact request modification of the cease and desist and general exclusion orders in the Co......
-
In Re Convertible Rowing Exerciser Patent Lit.
...findings of fact not considered determinations within the meaning of 19 U.S.C. § 1337. D.I. 200 at 8, citing American Tel. and Tel. Co. v. ITC, 626 F.2d 841, 842 (C.C.P.A.1980).7 In essence, the Defendants take the position that for purposes of collateral estoppel a distinction exists betwe......
-
Aleut Tribe v. U.S., 369
...568 F.2d 430 (5th Cir.1978); 9 J. Moore, B. Ward & J. Lucas, Moore's Federal Practice p 203.06 (2d ed. 1982). See also AT & T v. USITC, 626 F.2d 841 (Cust. & Pat.App.1980); Krupp International, Inc. v. USITC, 626 F.2d 843 (Cust. & Pat.App.1980); In re Loehr, 500 F.2d 1390, 183 USPQ 56 (Cust......
-
Federal Circuit Remands Issues Decided By Initial Determination But Not Substantively Reviewed By The ITC
...to appeal and the reason was for lack of case or controversy on appeal. Id. at 26 (citing Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 626 F.2d 841, 842 (C.C.P.A. 1980)). Here, the Court opined, GE had not prevailed below and was entitled to review. The Court further explained that the IT......