Certain Electric Power Tools, Battery Cartridges, and ... - USITC

4The Commission took no position on the ID'S adjudication of any other issuerelating to the alleged violation of section 337. L/Makita has moved for reconsideration of the Commission's decision not toreview the violation ID and to adopt only the aforesaid portions of the ID.In support of that motion, Makita cites the following:(1) a U.S. DistrictCourt deeision that "mandates reversal" of the Commission's adversedecision concerning Makita's common-law trademark infringement claims;(2) alleged prejudice to Makita resulting from the Commission's decisionnot to include certain categories of unfair acts within the scope of theinvestigation; and (3) alleged prejudice to Makita resulting from theCommission's decision to adopt selected portions of the ID without firsthaving ordered a review of the ID.The Comission investigative attorneys (ttIA~'t) and several respondentsoppose Makita's motion, arguing that it fails to meet the requirements ofthe Commission interim rule governing such motions and also fails todemonstrate error in the Commission's actions or its findings on thematters in question. 8/Motions for reconsideration of Commission determinations in section337 proceedings must be confined to new questions raised by the contesteddetermination or the action to be taken thereunder -- questions upon whicha/ Makita has moved to strike as untimely the opposition of respondentsJepson, Inc. and KO Shin Machinery & Electric CO., Ltd. to Makita's motionfor reconsideration. The Commission finds that the respondents' submissionwas timely under the governing Commission rules (19 C.F.R. 55 201.14(a) and201.16(d) (198911, and accordingly denies Makita's motion.