C.F.R. » Title 19 » CHAPTER II—UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION › SUBCHAPTER C—INVESTIGATIONS OF UNFAIR PRACTICES IN IMPORT TRADE › PART 210—ADJUDICATION AND ENFORCEMENT › Subpart H—Temporary Relief

19 C.F.R. § 210.53

Motion filed after complaint

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A motion for temporary relief may be filed after the complaint, but must be filed prior to the Commission determination under § 210.10 on whether to institute an investigation. A motion filed after the complaint shall contain the information, documents, and evidence described in § 210.52 and must also make a showing that extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant temporary relief and that the moving party was not aware, and with due diligence could not have been aware, of those circumstances at the time the complaint was filed. When a motion for temporary relief is filed after the complaint but before the Commission has determined whether to institute an investigation based on the complaint, the 35-day period allotted under § 210.58 for review of the complaint and informal investigatory activity will begin to run anew from the date on which the motion was filed.

(b) A motion for temporary relief may not be filed after an investigation has been instituted.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1985–1993 · leading case: Corning Glass Works v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, Sumitomo Elec. Indus., Ltd., Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., Intervenors, 799 F.2d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Corning Glass Works v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, Sumitomo Elec. Indus., Ltd., Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., Intervenors, 799 F.2d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “19 C.F.R. § 210.53 (h). II. The Commission Decision The Commission’s decision holds that there are two domestic industries, corresponding to the subject matter of each of Coming’s patents.”
Akzo N.V. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 808 F.2d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “19 C.F.R. § 210.53 (h) (1986) provides that "[a]n initial determination .”
Telectronics Proprietary, Ltd. v. Medtronic, Inc., 687 F. Supp. 832 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). “See 19 C.F.R. § 210.53 (h). 50 . Final determinations by the ITC determination may be appealed to the Federal Circuit under 19 C.”
Lannom Mfg. Co., Inc. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 799 F.2d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “Accordingly, the ID (except for the issues of best mode and infringement) has become the determination of the Commission pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 210.53 (h). On this appeal from the Commission’s final determination, none of the respondents named before the Commission has filed an…”
Surface Tech., Inc. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n v. Elektroschmelzwerk Kempten Gmbh, & W. Schlafhorst & Co., Intervenors, 801 F.2d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “19 C.F.R. § 210.53 (h) (1985). See Beloit Corp.”
New England Butt Co. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, & Kokubun, Inc., Intervenors, 756 F.2d 874 (Fed. Cir. 1985). “§ 1335 (1982) and 19 C.F.R. § 210.53 (h) (1984). II. Issues On appeal, New England Butt contends that the Commission erred by determining that the appearance of its braiding machine is primarily functional, and that the braid-er’s appearance is neither inherently distinctive nor…”
Texas Instruments Inc. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 988 F.2d 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1993). “19 C.F.R. § 210.53 (h) (1992). On February 18, 1992, the Commission issued its orders on the basis of a 46 page opinion deciding the issues under review.”
Texas Instruments Inc. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 851 F.2d 342 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “19 C.F.R. § 210.53 (h) (1987). II. Mootness In its motion to dismiss for mootness, the ITC contends that even if TI prevails on appeal, the law provides for no remedy because (1) the ’543 patent expired on November 17,1987, and (2) TI waived its right to appeal the invalidity…”
Intel Corp. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 946 F.2d 821 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “33,070 (1988) (codified at 19 C.F.R. § 210.53 (h) (1990)). While there is no indication in the agreement as to what the parties meant by the “Sanyo” limitation, the use of that language in paragraph 3.”
Allied Corp. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 850 F.2d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “19 C.F.R. § 210.53 (h) (1988). 2 On August 1,1985, ITC issued this Amorphous Metal Exclusion Order: Amorphous metal articles manufactured abroad in accordance with the process set forth in claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, and/or 12 of U.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.