American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. United States International Trade Commission
American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Western Electric Company, Incorporated and Nassau Recycle Corporation v. United States International Trade Commission and Southwire Company
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Baldwin, Judge.
This matter comes before us on Southwire Company’s (Southwire) *166 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 .
OPINION
Bell is not a “person adversely affected” by the Commission’s final determination. The statute gives the ITC authority to make determinations of “whether of 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—(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 (CCPA January 7, 1980).
Accordingly, Southwire’s Motion to Dismiss the Appeal is granted. Southwire’s Motion to Extend the Time for Filing a Cross-Appeal and Bell’s Motion for Extension of Time to Designate Record are therefore moot.
DISMISSED.
The papers considered by the court include Bell's request for Leave to File Further Response to South-wire’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal and Southwire's opposition thereto.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 4 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(“Since the ITC determined that there was no § 1337 violation by Bell, Bell is without standing to appeal.”)
-
(“court will consider evi-dentiary matters associated with statutory final determinations”)
Cited by 13 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. v. International Trade Commission
- In re Convertible Rowing Exerciser Patent Litigation
- Union Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. United States International Trade Commission
- Krupp International Inc. v. U.S. International Trade Commission
- The Aleut Tribe v. The United States
- Krupp International, Inc. v. U.S. International Trade Commission
Most recent
- General Electric Co. v. International Trade Commission
- General Electric Co. v. International Trade Commission
- Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. v. International Trade Commission
- In re Convertible Rowing Exerciser Patent Litigation
- Baltimore Luggage Co. v. Samsonite Corp.
- Beloit Corporation v. United States International Trade Commission, and Valmet Oy and Valmet Paper MacHinery Inc.
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.