The Commission will review Judge Dee Lord’s initial determination (“ID”) dismissing U.S. Steel’s antitrust claims on the pleadings. As we previously posted (here), Judge Lord ruled that U.S. Steel was required to plead federal antitrust standing to support its antitrust claim under Section 337, but had failed to do so.
The Commission now seeks written submissions from the parties and “interested government agencies” by January 17, 2017, on questions relating to requirements for antitrust-based claims at the ITC. Specifically, the Notice of Review requests that the submissions explain, inter alia:
- “[T]he policies that underlie the injury requirement under Section 337(a)(1)(A)(iii)”and how the injury requirements of Section 337(a)(1)(A)(iii) and Section 337(a)(1)(A)(i) differ;
- How the “antitrust injury” standing requirement for private litigants in federal district courts differs from the injury requirement under Section 337(a)(1)(A);
- “Whether ‘antitrust injury’ standing is, or should be, required for establishing a Section 337 violation based on a claim alleging a conspiracy to fix prices and control output and export volumes as a matter of law and/or policy”; and
- Whether good cause exists for allowing U.S. Steel to amend its complaint if Complainant is required to plead “antitrust injury.”
The Commission will announce whether it will conduct an oral argument by February 24, 2017, after reviewing the written submissions.