Surface Tech., Inc. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, Elektroschmelzwerk Kempten, Gmbh v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, W. Schlafhorst & Co. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 780 F.2d 29 (Fed. Cir. 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
Surface Tech., Inc. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, Elektroschmelzwerk Kempten, Gmbh v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, W. Schlafhorst & Co. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 780 F.2d 29 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Nikon Corp. v. International Trade Commission (cafc, 2003-07-31)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nikon Corp. v. International Trade Commission
Fed. Cir. · 2003 · confidence medium
In response to Nikon and the ITC’s motion to dismiss 03-1400, ASML states that it does not oppose the motion “if the Court allows ASML to intervene in Nikon’s appeal and it is understood that, as an intervenor, ASML may argue all grounds for sustaining the ITC’s ultimate determination of no violation.” In Surface Technology, Inc. v. United States International Trade Commission, 780 F.2d 29, 30 (Fed.Cir.1985), the court held that where the ITC issues a finding of no violation, respondents “are without standing to appeal.” However, a respondent may intervene and participate in the …
cited Cited "see" Research in Motion Ltd. v. International Trade Commission
Fed. Cir. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See Surface Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 780 F.2d 29 , 30-31 (Fed.
discussed Cited "see" Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. v. International Trade Commission
Fed. Cir. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Surface Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 780 F.2d 29 , 30 (Fed.Cir.1985) (alleged infringer lacks standing to challenge a Commission finding that certain requirements of Section 1337 were satisfied when the non-infringement finding made the alleged infringer the prevailing party); Krupp Int’l, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm'n, 626 F.2d 844, 846 (C.C.P.A.1980) (alleged infringer lacks standing to separately appeal a finding that the patent was valid when the Commission's finding of non-infringement made the alleged infringer the prevailing party); Am.
cited Cited "see" Surface Technology, Inc. v. United States International Trade Commission v. Elektroschmelzwerk Kempten Gmbh, and W. Schlafhorst & Co., Intervenors
Fed. Cir. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See Surface Technology, Inc. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 780 F.2d 29 , 30-31 (Fed.Cir.1985). 3 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Baltimore Luggage Co. v. Samsonite Corp.
D. Maryland · 1989 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See e.g., Surface Technology, Inc. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 780 F.2d 29 (Fed.Cir.1985); Krupp Int’l v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 626 F.2d 844 (Fed.Cir.1980); American Tel. & Tel. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 626 F.2d 841 (Fed.Cir.1980).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Surface Technology, Inc.
v.
United States International Trade Commission, Elektroschmelzwerk Kempten, Gmbh v. United States International Trade Commission, W. Schlafhorst & Co. v. United States International Trade Commission
85-1163.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Dec 20, 1985.
780 F.2d 29
Published
2 passages pin-cited by 3 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 91%
Citer courts: Fourth Circuit (1) · Colorado Court of Appeals (1) · D. South Carolina (1)

780 F.2d 29

7 ITRD 1628, 4 Fed. Cir. (T) 25

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.

Dec. 5, 1985.
As Amended Dec. 20, 1985.

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.

Before FRIEDMAN, RICH, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER[*]

RICH, Circuit Judge.

[*~29]1

Surface Technology, Inc. (STI) filed a complaint alleging unfair acts and methods of competition in violation of Sec. 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 Sec. 337. All three parties have filed appeals from the ITC's determination.

2

Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1337(c), a party adversely affected by a final determination of the ITC may appeal to this court.

3

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

4

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. International Trade 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,

IT IS ORDERED:

5

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

6

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

7

(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.

[*~30]8

(4) The Clerk shall set a revised briefing schedule.

*

This Order, originally issued on April 10, 1985, as an unpublished order, is reissued for publication, with correction of typographical errors