Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, 1980

American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. United States International Trade Commission

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Decided March 26, 1980 · Baldwin, Markey, Miller, Rich

67 C.C.P.A. 165; 626 F.2d 841; 206 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 222; 1980 CCPA LEXIS 266

Cases that cite this one

14 later published cases cite this decision. The 13 that cite it most often are listed here.

General Electric Co. v. International Trade Commission (Fed. Cir. 2012)
Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. v. International Trade Commission (Fed. Cir. 2007)
In re Convertible Rowing Exerciser Patent Litigation (United States District Court for the District of Delaware 1993)
Union Manufacturing Co., Inc., Appellant-Respondent v. United States International Trade Commission, Appellee-Petitioner (Fed. Cir. 1985)
The Aleut Tribe v. The United States (Fed. Cir. 1983)
Krupp International Inc. v. U.S. International Trade Commission (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1981)
General Electric Co. v. International Trade Commission (Fed. Cir. 2012)
Baltimore Luggage Co. v. Samsonite Corp. (District Court, D. Maryland 1989)
Beloit Corporation v. United States International Trade Commission, and Valmet Oy and Valmet Paper Machinery Inc., Intervenor (Fed. Cir. 1988)
Akzo v. International Trade Commission (Fed. Cir. 1986)
Akzo N.V. v. U.S. International Trade Commission (Fed. Cir. 1986)
Surface Technology, Inc. v. United States International Trade Commission (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Krupp International, Inc. v. U.S. International Trade Commission (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1980)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Baldwin, Judge.

This matter comes before us on Southwire Company’s (Southwire) *166Motion 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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.