![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
July 6, 2012, Decided
[***1257] [*1219] ORDER
A combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc was filed by the International Trade Commission (ITC). A response was invited by the panel and filed by General Electric Company. The petition for panel rehearing, response, and reply were considered by the panel that heard the appeal.
Upon consideration thereof,
It Is Ordered That:
(1) ITC's petition for panel rehearing is granted for the limited purpose of withdrawing Part III of the opinion. The panel offers no decision on [**2] the questions raised in Part III, which may arise in a future case.
(2) The previous opinion in this appeal issued February 29, 2012 and reported at Gen. Elec. Co. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 670 F.3d 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2012), is withdrawn and replaced with the revised opinion accompanying this order.
(3) The petition for rehearing en banc has been circulated to the full court.
For The Court
July 6, 2012
Dissent by: NEWMAN
Newman, Circuit Judge, dissenting from the panel action on rehearing.
In its now withdrawn opinion, the court criticized the action of the International Trade Commission whereby the Commission removed the issues of infringement and validity of the '985 patent from judicial review. These issues had been fully investigated, fully tried, and finally decided in the ITC's Final Initial Determination and were not reviewed by the full Commission, thus becoming a final Commission decision and appealable to the Federal Circuit. Nonetheless, the court now grants the [***1258] Commission's request and ratifies the Commission's authority to negate the finality of these final decisions, thereby forestalling judicial review and impeding the expeditious resolution of ITC proceedings, as required by statute and [**3] as the Commission represents to the public.
The '985 patent is one of several patents for whose infringement General Electric sought remedy in the ITC in accordance with 19 U.S.C. §1337. The Commission unilaterally, without prior notice, prevented completion of the Section 337 action, even as the Commission issued the Final Determination that is the subject of this appeal. My colleagues now grant the Commission's request on rehearing, and withdraw the court's expression of concern for the Commission's shortcut of its statutory obligations. I must, respectfully, dissent.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
692 F.3d 1218 *; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13829 **; 103 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1257 ***; 34 Int'l Trade Rep. (BNA) 1648
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, Appellee, AND MITSUBISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES, LTD., AND MITSUBISHI POWER SYSTEMS AMERICAS, INC., Intervenors.
Prior History: [**1] Appeal from the United States International Trade Commission in Investigation. No. 337-TA-641.
GE v. ITC, 670 F.3d 1206, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4118 (Fed. Cir., 2012)
judicial review, initial determination, proceedings, full commission, expeditious, notice, investigations, infringement, becomes