Opinion ID: 508504
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The 1985-87 Proceedings

Text: 18 In early 1985 ITC granted petitions for advisory opinion proceedings filed by HML and VAC who sought advice that the importation of amorphous metal products made by their newly developed processes would not violate the Amorphous Metal Exclusion Order or section 337. See 19 C.F.R. Sec. 211.54(b) (1988). ITC sua sponte initiated exclusion order modification proceedings, see 19 U.S.C. Sec. 337(h); 19 C.F.R. Sec. 211.57, with HML, VAC, NSC and Siemens as parties. The advisory opinion and exclusion order modification proceedings were consolidated for hearing. 19 On March 3, 1986, the ALJ issued an initial advisory opinion (IAO) and recommended determination (RD) on modification of the exclusion order. In the IAO and RD, the ALJ determined that the new HML and VAC processes did not infringe the '257 patent claims as interpreted by ITC in the original investigation, and recommended modification, accordingly, of the exclusion order. Allied petitioned ITC to review the ALJ's IAO and RD.
20 On May 28, 1987, ITC issued its advisory opinion, which supplemented and modified the ALJ's IAO, but did not change its result. In particular, ITC stated: 21 We reject Allied's arguments for redetermining the scope and validity of the '257 patent claims. Under the doctrine of law of the case ... that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case. 22 .... 23 Apart from the application of law of the case to these proceedings, we note that Allied agreed not to litigate the issue of claim interpretation in the advisory opinion proceedings. Indeed, at the end of the original investigation, Allied embraced the claim interpretation necessary to preserve the '257 patent's validity in the original investigation. 24 Investigation No. 337-TA-143, Advisory Opinion Proceeding, Views of the Commission at 11-12 (May 28, 1987) (footnotes omitted). 25 Citing the earlier claim construction of nozzle to include a wide lips limitation as recited in the specification, ITC construe[d] the wide nozzle lips to be of the dimensions set forth in the 'Summary of the Invention' set forth in the '257 patent specification. Id. at 15. 3 ITC concluded that: in order for respondents' processes to literally infringe the claims of the '257 patent, they must utilize a front casting nozzle lip that is at least 1.45 times as wide as the width of the casting nozzle's slot. Id. at 15-16. 4 ITC expressly refrained from determining the upper range of nozzle lips that would fall within the scope of the claims. Id. at 15. ITC also found that there was no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
26 On June 17, 1987, ITC issued an order modifying its Amorphous Metal Exclusion Order of August 1, 1985. In the Modified Order, paragraph 1 repeated the claim construction set out in the advisory opinion, and paragraphs 3 and 4 set out procedures to be followed by those desiring to import articles covered by the order: 27 3. Persons desiring to import amorphous metal articles covered by paragraph 1 of this Order may petition the Commission to institute such further proceedings as may be appropriate in order to determine whether the amorphous metal articles sought to be imported fall outside the scope of paragraph 1 of this Order, and therefore should be allowed entry into the United States. 28 4. Persons desiring to import amorphous metal articles covered by this Order shall certify to the U.S. Customs Service that the amorphous metal articles sought to be imported were manufactured by a process that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to be outside the scope of paragraph 1 of this Order.... 5 29 Allied appealed from the Advisory Opinion and from the Modified Exclusion Order.