General Electric Co. v. International Trade Commission
692 F.3d 1218
Fed. Cir.2012Background
- The ITC's Final Initial Determination found infringement and validity of the '985 patent in a Section 337 proceeding involving General Electric and Mitsubishi;
- Those issues were fully litigated before the ALJ but were not reviewed by the full Commission, making the ALJ decision final and appealable to the Federal Circuit if preserved;
- The panel on rehearing withdrew Part III and allowed the Commission to avoid judicial review of these finally decided issues by taking no position on reviewable issues;
- The dissent argues this practice undermines the statutory requirement of expeditious ITC resolution and undermines finality of judicial review under 19 U.S.C. § 1337 and related regulations;
- The dissent cites Darby, Cobbledick, McLish, and other authorities to oppose allowing the Commission to negate finality and remove issues from appellate review;
- The dissent emphasizes the ITC’s obligation to provide expeditious adjudication and criticizes the 2008 rule amendment permitting the Commission to avoid finality by not taking a position on certain issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ITC can bar judicial review of final ALJ determinations by non-committal action | GE contends ITC cannot negate final ALJ rulings by taking no position on issues already decided | ITC argues the Commission may review and remand without waiving review of all issues | Held that ITC cannot bar judicial review of finally decided issues |
| Whether removal of final issues from review defeats Section 337’s expeditious resolution goal | Dissent asserts piecemeal reviews delay resolution and undermine expeditious adjudication | Panel argues procedure complies with statutes and regulations with proper review mechanics | Held that removal undermines expeditious proceedings |
| Whether the ALJ decision on infringement and validity must be reviewed by the full Commission for finality | ALJ findings should be reviewable on appeal under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(c) when final | Commission contends its action preserves core proceedings within its review framework | Held that full Commission review is required for final ALJ determinations on those issues |
| Whether Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy supports allowing ITC to exclude final issues from review | GE disputes reliance on Beloit as authority for non-reviewable final issues | ITC relies on Beloit to justify the non-review approach | Held that Beloit does not authorize excluding fully litigated issues from review |
| Whether the proper remedy is en banc consideration to address statutory compliance concerns | Dissent urges en banc review to address delays and statutory compliance concerns | Panel did not articulate en banc rationale but left issue unresolved | Held that case should be considered en banc for statutory input |
Key Cases Cited
- Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137 (1993) (agency action final for purposes of judicial review after exhaustion of remedies)
- McLish v. Roff, 141 U.S. 661 (1891) (finality and single appeal policy for unified controversy)
- Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323 (1940) (policy against piecemeal disposition on appeal)
- Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421 (Fed.Cir.1984) (special Beloit situation not supporting exclusion from review)
- Warner Bros., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 787 F.2d 562 (Fed.Cir.1986) (ITC cannot preclude meaningful judicial review)
- American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 67 CCPA 165, 626 F.2d 841 (1980) (standing to appeal when ITC determines no violation)