Opinion · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

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

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

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1980-03-26
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • “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”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. United States International Trade Commission. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
16 opinions
AM. TEL. TEL. v. U.S. INTERN. TRADE COM'N,626 F.2d 841(C.C.P.A. 1980)
AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY,
INCORPORATED AND NASSAU RECYCLE CORPORATION, APPELLANTS, v. UNITED STATES
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION AND SOUTHWIRE COMPANY, APPELLEES.
Appeal No. 80-14.
United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
March 26, 1980.
Page 842
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.
Appeal from the United States International Trade Commission.
Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN and MILLER, Associate Judges.
BALDWIN, Judge.
[1] This matter comes before us on Southwire Company's (Southwire) Motion to Dismissfn*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 theMatter of Certain Apparatus for the Continuous Production ofCopper Rod,Investigation No. 337-TA-52. The ITC concluded that Bell had not violated19 U.S.C. § 1337.
[2] OPINION
[3] Bell 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 arenotdeterminations 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 fromRefractarios 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 (CCPA January 7, 1980).

[4] Accordingly, Southwire's Motion to Dismiss the Appeal isgranted.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.

[5]DISMISSED.Page 843
  1. The papers considered by the court include Bell's request for Leave to File Further Response to Southwire's Motion to Dismiss Appeal and Southwire's opposition thereto. ↩