On October 31, 2016, Judge Essex issued an Initial Determination in Certain Stainless Steel Products, Certain Processes for Manufacturing or Related to Same and Certain Products Containing Same denying Complainant Valbruna Slater Stainless, Inc., Valbruna Stainless Inc., and Valbruna S.p.A.’s (collectively, “Valbruna”) motion to initiate a bond forfeiture proceeding. Judge Essex held that a bond forfeiture proceeding cannot be instituted until after all appeals of the Commission’s violation decision have been exhausted.
On October 19, 2016, the Commission issued a notice instituting an investigation in Certain Silicon-On-Insulator Wafers, Inv. No. 337-TA-1025. The Commission ordered the presiding administrative law judge to hold an early evidentiary hearing pursuant to the 100-day pilot program on whether the Complainant satisfies the economic prong of domestic industry.
On October 14, 2016, the Commission issued an Opinion in Certain Stainless Steel Products, Certain Processes for Manufacturing or Relating to Same and Certain Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-933 denying a request for an advisory opinion.
ITC to Consider Contributory Infringement and Laches Issues at First Section 337 Oral Argument Before the Commission in Nearly a Decade [UPDATE]
As noted in our May 16, 2016, post, the ITC will be conducting a live Section 337 hearing before the Commission for the first time in nearly a decade. The Commission has rescheduled the hearing for November 17, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. in the Main Hearing room.
In this installment of Section 337 Week in Review, investigations 337-TA-1018, 337-TA-1019, and 337-TA-1020 instituted, the Commission denied a request for entry into the 100-Day Pilot Program, and the Commission issued an advisory opinion in 337-TA-933.
An advisory opinion provides non-binding guidance with respect to the legal implications of a particular situation that is not the subject of an actual case or controversy. Federal courts are precluded from providing advisory opinions by Article III of the Constitution. However, unlike federal courts, the ITC, as an executive agency, can issue advisory opinions in certain circumstances. The ITC is specifically authorized to issue advisory opinions as to whether a proposed course of conduct (e.g. the importation of a new or redesigned product) would violate an existing exclusion, cease and desist, or consent order.