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

10The statute sets deadlines for the completion of section 337investigations, u/ and the Commission rules governing amendment of noticesof investigations and complaints indicate that even if a complainantalleges that there is good cause for allowing an amendment that wouldchange the scope of the investigation, such amendment will only bepermitted if it can be accomplished in a manner that will avoid prejudicingthe rights of the parties to the investigation and the public interest. a/In light of those restrictions, Makita was, or should have been, aware thatany complainant who believes that the Commission's notice of investigationimproperly narrows the scope of the Commission's inquiry should take promptaction to attempt to have the notice amended.Makita's complaint addressed misappropriation and common-law unfaircompetition in separate counts, and Makita contends that those categoriesof unfair acts are separate from and broader than common-law trademarkinfringement and passing off and that they provide separate bases for thegranting of section 337 relief. Yet, when the Commission issued a noticeof investigation that did not include misappropriation and common-lawunfair competition, Makita failed to take any action, prior to filing ofthe present motion for reconsideration, to attempt to have the scope of theinvestigation expanded to include those categories of alleged unfair acts.In light of these circumstances, the Commission finds no reason to grantsuch relief in response to a motion for reconsideration of its22/ W 19 U.S.C. § 1337(b) (1).a/ % 19 C.F.R. § 210.22 (a) and (b).