By Eric Schweibenz
On April 16, 2009, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of Order No. 20 in Certain Cast Steel Railway Wheels, Certain Processes for Manufacturing or Relating to Same and Certain Products Containing Same (337-TA-655).  According to the Order, ALJ Charneski denied respondent Standard Car Truck Company’s (“SCT”) motion to dismiss complainant Amsted Industries Incorporated’s (“Amsted”) complaint. 

In the Order, ALJ Charneski first explained that SCT’s motion to dismiss “was filed pursuant to Commission Rule 210.18, i.e., the rule on summary determination (19 C.F.R. § 210.18).”  SCT argued that the complaint should be dismissed for three reasons: (1) there was no trade secrets in existence at the time of the filing of the complaint that could have been misappropriated as alleged by [Amsted]; (2) there was no domestic industry at the time of filing, and therefore (3) the [ITC] lacks subject matter jurisdiction.”  Amsted and the Commission Investigative Staff opposed SCT’s motion.

ALJ Charneski determined that “SCT’s short memorandum [in support of its motion] raises, and leaves unanswered, many material questions.”  Specifically, ALJ Charneski found that “SCT admittedly does not know the scope and content of the alleged trade secrets at issue.”  Regarding SCT’s argument that the Commission lacks subject matter jurisdiction, ALJ Charneski found that “the facts alleged by Amsted in its complaint fall within the subject matter jurisdiction accorded to the Commission by statute.”  Accordingly, ALJ Charneski denied SCT’s motion to dismiss the complaint.