• ALJ Rogers Denies Respondent’s Motion To Compel Amendment Of Complaint in Certain Starter Motors and Alternators (Inv. No. 337-TA-755)
  • April 11, 2011 | Author: Alexander E. Gasser
  • Law Firm: Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. - Alexandria Office
  • On March 31, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 13 in Certain Starter Motors and Alternators (Inv. No. 337-TA-755).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers denied Respondent Wetherill Associates, Inc. d/b/a WAI Global’s (“WAI”) motion to compel complainants Remy International, Inc. and Remy Technologies, L.L.C., (collectively “Remy”) to either amend their complaint to name BBB Industries, LLC (“BBB”) as a respondent or withdraw their request for a general exclusion order.

    According to the Order, WAI asserts that BBB is one of the largest sellers of starter motors and alternators in the United States, and that these starter motors and alternators are manufactured outside of the United States and carry the same uniform, industry-wide tracking numbers as the accused products identified in Remy’s Amended Complaint.  WAI argued that to prevent complainants from manipulating the system by naming only respondents likely to default or mount a weak defense, it is the ITC’s policy to encourage complainants seeking a general exclusion order to name all known alleged infringers in their complaint.  Since Remy is seeking a general exclusion order, WAI argued Remy should be compelled to add BBB as a respondent or withdraw its request for a general exclusion order.

    ALJ Rogers noted that WAI cited no authority to support its proposition that Remy can be forced to either add a respondent to an investigation or withdraw its request for a general exclusion order.  ALJ Rogers determined that “[a]bsent authority to the contrary, Remy has the right to select the respondents it will name in this investigation,” and he therefore denied WAI’s motion.  ALJ Rogers further stated, “If WAI believes that BBB’s absence from this investigation is relevant and material to the issue of whether or not Remy is entitled to a general exclusion order, it may raise that issue at the appropriate time.”