TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

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

Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 626 F.2d 841 (C.C.P.A. 1980)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Federal Specialty Courts
Decided
March 26, 1980
Docket
No. 80-14
Judges
Baldwin, Markey, Miller, Rich
Citations
626 F.2d 84167 C.C.P.A. 165206 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 2221980 CCPA LEXIS 266

Opinion of the Court — Baldwin

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.

Cited by 13 cases

View all citing references →
1980: 11981: 11983: 11985: 31986: 11988: 11989: 11993: 12007: 12012: 219802026peak 1985 · 3

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.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Refractarios Monterrey, S.A. v. Ferro Corp., 606 F.2d 966 (C.C.P.A. 1979) 9

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list