Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Surface Technology, Inc. v. United States International Trade Commission

Surface Tech., Inc. v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 780 F.2d 29 (Fed. Cir. 1985)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1985-12-05
Topic
general

ORDER * RICH, Circuit Judge. Surface Technology, Inc. (STI) filed a complaint alleging unfair acts and methods of competition in violation of § 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 before the International Trade Commission. Elektroschmelzwerk Kempten, GMBH (ESK) and W. Schlaf-horst and Co.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Surface Technology, Inc. v. United States International Trade Commission. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
2 opinions
SURFACE TECHNOLOGY, INC. v. U.S. INTERN.,780 F.2d 29(Fed. Cir. 1985)
SURFACE TECHNOLOGY, INC., PETITIONER, v. UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION, RESPONDENT.
ELEKTROSCHMELZWERK KEMPTEN, GMBH, ET AL., PETITIONERS, v. UNITED STATES
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, RESPONDENT.
W. SCHLAFHORST CO., ET AL., PETITIONERS, v. UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL
TRADE COMMISSION, RESPONDENT.
Appeal Nos. 85-1163, 85-1862 and 85-1863.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
December 5, 1985.
As Amended December 20, 1985.
Page 30
Kenneth J. Burchfiel, Sughrue, Mion, Zinn, Macpeak Seas, Washington, D.C., argued for petitioner. With him on the brief was Thomas J. Macpeak, P.C., Italo H. Ablondi, F. David Foster and Sturgis M. Sobin, Ablondi Foster, P.C., Washington, D.C., of counsel.

Judith M. Czako, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Intern. Trade Com'n, Washington, D.C., argued for respondent ITC. With her on the brief were Lyn M. Schlitt, Gen. Counsel and Michael P. Mabile, Asst. Gen. Counsel.

Donald D. Evenson, Barnes Thornburg, Washington, D.C., argued for petitioner W. Schlafhorst Co. With him on the brief was Ryan M. Fountain. Dalbert U. Shefte, Richards, Shefte, Pinckney, Charlotte, N.C. and Donald E. Knebel, Barnes Thornburg, Indianapolis, Ind., of counsel.

Herbert I. Cantor, Cantor Lessler, Bethesda, Md., argued for petitioner Elektroschmelzwerk. Milton J. Wayne and Richard M. Goldberg Burgess, Ryan Wayne, New York City, of counsel.
Appeal from the International Trade Commission.
Before FRIEDMAN, RICH, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
[1] ORDERfn*
RICH, Circuit Judge.
[2] Surface Technology, Inc. (STI) filed a complaint alleging unfair acts and methods of competition in violation of § 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 before the International Trade Commission. Elektroschmelzwerk Kempten, GMBH (ESK) and W. Schlafhorst and Co. (Schlafhorst) participated as respondents before the ITC. Ultimately the Commission found no violation of § 337. All three parties have filed appeals from the ITC's determination.

[3] Pursuant to19 U.S.C. § 1337(c), a party adversely affected by a final determination of the ITC may appeal to this court.

[4] In view of the ITC's finding of no violation of § 337 by ESK and Schlafhorst, these parties are without standing to appeal.American Telephone and Telegraph Company v. U.S. InternationalTrade Commission,626 F.2d 841(CCPA 1980). Accordingly, their appeals will be dismissed.

[5] ESK and Schlafhorst are entitled to participate in STI's appeal before this court in which they may raise any claim in support of the ITC's determination of no violation.Krupp International,Inc. v. U.S. InternationalPage 31Trade Commission,626 F.2d 844(CCPA 1980). This court, however, will not review those portions of the presiding officer's determinations on which the Commission has taken no position.Beloit v. Valmet Oy,742 F.2d 1421(Fed. Cir. 1984). Accordingly,

[6] IT IS ORDERED:

[7] (1) ITC's motions to dismiss cross-appeal Nos. 85-1862 and 85-1863 are granted.

[8] (2) ESK's and Schlafhorst's motions to intervene as appellees in appeal no. 85-1163 are granted.

[9] (3) ESK's motion to consolidate appeal Nos. 85-1862 with 85-1863 and STI's motions to intervene in appeal Nos. 85-1862 and 85-1863 are rendered moot.

[10] (4) The Clerk shall set a revised briefing schedule.
  1. This Order, originally issued on April 10, 1985, as an unpublished order, is reissued for publication, with correction of typographical errors. ↩