Rambus Inc. v. International Trade Commission

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

# United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

RAMBUS INC.,
Appellant,
v.
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION,
Appellee,
and
NVIDIA CORPORATION,
Intervenor.

2010-1366

On appeal from the United States International Trade
Commission in Investigation No. 337-TA-661.

RAMBUS INC.,
Appellant,
v.
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION,
Appellee,
and
NVIDIA CORPORATION,

<!-- PageBreak -->

<!-- PageHeader="RAMBUS v. ITC" -->

Intervenor.

2010 -1483

On appeal from the United States International Trade
Commission in Investigation No. 337-TA-661.

## ON MOTION

Before GAJARSA, SCHALL, and MOORE, Circuit
Judges.

SCHALL, Circuit Judge.

## ORDER

NVIDIA Corporation moved for leave to intervene in
2010-1366 and moved for an extension of time to file a
motion to intervene in 2010-1483. Separately, NVIDIA
Corporation moved to dismiss 2010-1366. Rambus Inc.
opposed. The International Trade Commission supported
the motion to dismiss. NVIDIA Corporation subsequently
filed a motion to withdraw its prior motion to dismiss
2010-1366 and filed a motion to consolidate 2010-1366
with 2010-1483.

In 2010-1366, Rambus appeals the International
Trade Commission's March 25, 2010 determination that,
inter alia, rejected Rambus' petition to vacate an Admin-
istrative Law Judge's order ordering Rambus to produce
certain privileged documents. Rambus filed its notice of
appeal on May 24, 2010. The ITC subsequently issued a
final determination on July 26, 2010. Rambus appeals
the final determination in appeal 2010-1483.

<!-- PageBreak -->

<!-- PageHeader="RAMBUS v. ITC" -->

NVIDIA asserted in its motion to dismiss that the
March 25 order is not an appealable determination be-
cause this court only has jurisdiction to review final
determinations of the Commission. The Commission
agreed with NVIDIA's argument. Rambus argued that
the Commission's rejection of its petition to vacate the
ALJ's order is an appealable final determination because
the rejection was no longer under review by the Commis-
sion.

Under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(c), this court can only review
Commission determinations that are "final determination
on the merits, excluding or refusing to exclude articles
from 'entry". Block v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 777 F.2d
1568, 1571 (Fed. Cir 1985) (emphasis in original). Be-
cause Rambus has not shown that 2010-1366 is an appeal
from a final determination on the merits pursuant to §
1337(c), we conclude that appeal 2010-1366 is premature
and we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Rambus can, of
course, seek review of interlocutory rulings, if appropri-
ate, in 2010-1483.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion for an extension of time to file a
motion to intervene, and the motions to intervene, are
granted. The revised official captions are reflected above.

(2) Appeal 2010-1366 is dismissed. Each side shall
bear its own costs in 2010-1366.

(3) The motion to dismiss, the motions to consolidate,
and the motion to withdraw the motion to dismiss are
denied as moot.

<!-- PageBreak -->

<!-- PageHeader="RAMBUS v. ITC" -->

NOV 1 8 2010
Date

cc: J. Michael Jakes, Esq.
Paul M. Bartkowski, Esq.
Ruffin B. Cordell, Esq.

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly
Jan Horbaly
Clerk

$20

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
NOV 1 8 2010

JAN HORBALY
CLERK