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

122 (19821, S€hWer K€& COS v. U.S.I.T.C, , 717 F.2d 1368 (Fed. Cir.1983) (Tov Truck").The Comission has heldthat where, as here, more than oneintellectual property right is at issue, there may be a single domesticindustry or several domestic industries devoted to the exploitation of thealleged intellectual property rights.ries. C w g w e o fand Products Cont-,..om AccessInv. No. 337-TA-242, Commission Op. at 64 (1987). Similar to Hood wor- , thisinvestigation involves the assertion of multiple intellectual propertyrights (tool designs), of which some are individually applicable to asingle product and some apply to more than one product. Cartainjioodwork- , Inv. No. 337-TA-174, U.S.I.T.C. Pub. 1979 (1987). Injioodwo-the Comission determined that the most appropriatedefinition of the domestic industry was a single industry noting "that whenseveral industries can be defined on the basis of the exploitation ofvarious intellectual property rights 8nd there is considerable overlap withrespect to the products associated with the industries defined in terms ofthese intellectual property rights, it may be appropriate to define theindustry in terms of the commonly shared right, that extends to a groupingof products." Id., Views of Liebler, Eckes, Lodwick, and Rohr at 40.The complainants urge several definitions of the domestic industry,each of which encompasses the tools that complainants merely import andsell in the United States. The respondents urge that the domestic industrystandard must be separately met for each model of Makita tools at issue inthis investigation.The staff takes the position that regardless ofwhether a single or multiple industry determination is appropriate in this239