We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
recently granted a petition for a panel rehearing by the U.S.
International Trade Commission (ITC) and withdrew a component of a
published decision that would have prohibited the ITC's
practice of circumscribing the scope of Federal Circuit reviews of
ITC decisions.1
ITC adjudications in Section 337 cases are a two-step process.
An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) holds a hearing and issues an
Initial Determination (ID). If the Commission as a whole does not
vote to review the ID, either by granting a party's petition or
on its own motion, then the ID becomes the Final Determination
(FD)2. Otherwise, the Commission's decision is the
FD. The FD is ultimately appealable to the Federal
Circuit.3
In some instances the Commission notices review of sections of
the ID that it then later chooses not to rule upon. It has been the
long-standing position of the Commission that under such
circumstances the only issues ripe for appeal to the Federal
Circuit are the ones upon which it actually ruled. The Federal
Circuit arguably endorsed this position.4
In the strongly worded initial decision in this case by Circuit
Judge Pauline Newman, a 3-0 panel of the Federal Circuit, including
Chief Judge Randall R. Rader and Circuit Judge Richard Linn,
rejected the ITC's practice of noticing issues from Initial
Determinations but not reviewing them, thereby depriving the
aggrieved party of the statutory right of appeal: "This right
[of appeal] cannot be negated by taking no position on the
issue."5
The ITC filed a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing
en banc. Upon invitation by the panel, General Electric
filed a response to the petition.
By a 2-1 decision authored by Chief Judge Rader and joined in by
Judge Linn, the panel granted the ITC's petition for panel
rehearing for the limited purpose of withdrawing the portion of the
initial decision prohibiting the ITC from limiting the scope of
judicial review. The Court, however, did not foreclose revisiting
the issue at a later date: "The panel offers no decisions on
the questions raised in Part III, which may arise in future
cases."6
Because the Federal Circuit has left the issue unresolved,
appellants in ITC cases would be well advised to consider
continuing to preserve the issue for appeal should it arise in
their case.
If you have any questions about this Alert, please contact
Rodney R. Sweetland III, Michael G. McManus, any member of the ITC
Section 337 Litigation Practice Group or any attorney in the firm
with whom you are in regular contact.
Footnotes
1 General Electric Co. v. Int'l Trade
Comm'n, 2012 LEXIS 13829 (July 6,
2012).
2 19 C.F.R. § 210.42(h).
3 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(6).
4 See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet OY, 742 F.2d 1421,
1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
5 General Electric Co. v. Int'l Trade
Comm'n, 670 F.3d 1206, 1220 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
6 General Electric Co. v. Int'l Trade
Comm'n, 2012 LEXIS 13829 at *1.
This article is for general information and does not include
full legal analysis of the matters presented. It should not be
construed or relied upon as legal advice or legal opinion on any
specific facts or circumstances. The description of the results of
any specific case or transaction contained herein does not mean or
suggest that similar results can or could be obtained in any other
matter. Each legal matter should be considered to be unique and
subject to varying results. The invitation to contact the authors
or attorneys in our firm is not a solicitation to provide
professional services and should not be construed as a statement as
to any availability to perform legal services in any jurisdiction
in which such attorney is not permitted to practice.
Duane Morris LLP, a full-service law firm with more than 700
attorneys in 24 offices in the United States and internationally,
offers innovative solutions to the legal and business challenges
presented by today's evolving global markets. Duane Morris LLP,
a full-service law firm with more than 700 attorneys in 24 offices
in the United States and internationally, offers innovative
solutions to the legal and business challenges presented by
today's evolving global markets. The
Duane Morris Institute provides training workshops for HR
professionals, in-house counsel, benefits administrators and senior
managers.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
A discussion on the jurisdictional limitations of forum-selection clauses, the inconsistencies with their enforceability, and the potential for the establishment of a standardized procedure to enable companies to evaluate forum-selection clauses with more certainty going forward.
Under what is commonly called the Sporck doctrine, the opinion work product doctrine can sometimes protect the identity of certain documents that do not themselves deserve intrinsic privilege or work product protection, as long as the adversary also has the documents and the identity could reflect a lawyer's opinion.
Keywords: Amgen v. Conn. Retirement Plans, Basic Inc. v. Levinson, Erica P. John Fund Inc. v. Halliburton Co., Fifth Circuit, fraud on the market, reliance, Supreme Court
In Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981), the court interpreted federal common law as extending privilege protection to communications between a company's lawyer and any level of employee, if that employee has facts the lawyer needs when advising the corporate client.
Procedural rules that govern lawsuits in federal court permit defendants to make an "offer of judgment," which is a mechanism allowing a defendant to offer to settle a lawsuit.
Going Vinny
