Systems for Detecting and Removing Viruses or Worms, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Determination to Institute Advisory Opinion Proceedings, 76076-76077 [E5-7715]

Download as PDF 76076 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 245 / Thursday, December 22, 2005 / Notices Persons filing written submissions must file with the Office of the Secretary the original and 12 true copies thereof on or before the deadlines stated above. Any person desiring to submit a document (or portion thereof) to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment unless the information has already been granted such treatment during the proceedings. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary of the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment is granted by the Commission will be treated accordingly. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary. The Commission has extended the target date for completion of this investigation by 30 days, i.e., until March 1, 2006. This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in sections 210.42–.46 and section 210.51 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42– .46, 51). Issued: December 16, 2005. By order of the Commission. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E5–7714 Filed 12–21–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 731–TA–287 (Review)] Issued: December 19, 2005. By order of the Commission. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E5–7719 Filed 12–21–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Inv. No. 337–TA–510 (Advisory Opinion Proceedings)] Systems for Detecting and Removing Viruses or Worms, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Determination to Institute Advisory Opinion Proceedings U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Raw In-Shell Pistachios From Iran Determination On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject five-year review, the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on raw in-shell pistachios from Iran would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES determined on June 6, 2005, that it would conduct a full review.3 Notice of the scheduling of the Commission’s review and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register on June 30, 2005.4 The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on October 11, 2005, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel. The Commission transmitted its determination in this review to the Secretary of Commerce on December 15, 2005. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 3824 (December 2005), entitled Raw In-Shell Pistachios from Iran: Investigation No. 731–TA–287 (Review). Background The Commission instituted this review on March 1, 2005,2 and SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to institute advisory opinion proceedings in the above-captioned investigation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy P. Monaghan, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202– 205–3152. Copies of all nonconfidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E 1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR § 207.2(f)). 2 70 FR 9976. 3 70 FR 35116, June 16, 2005 (Chairman Koplan, Commissioner Miller, and Commissioner Hillman dissenting). 4 70 FR 37867. VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:55 Dec 21, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202–205–2000. Hearingimpaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (https://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), was instituted by the Commission on June 3, 2004, based on a complaint filed by Trend Micro Inc. (‘‘Trend Micro’’) of Cupertino, California. 69 FR 32044–45 (June 8, 2004). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation into the United States, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain systems for detecting and removing computer viruses or worms, components thereof, and products containing same by reason of infringement of claims 1–22 of U.S. Patent No. 5,623,600 (‘‘the ‘600 patent’’). The notice of investigation named Fortinet of Sunnyvale, California as the sole respondent. On May 9, 2005, the ALJ issued his final initial determination (‘‘ID’’) finding a violation of section 337 based on his findings that claims 4, 7, 8, and 11–15 of the ’600 patent are not invalid or unenforceable, and are infringed by respondent’s products. The ALJ also found that claims 1 and 3 of the ‘600 patent are invalid as anticipated by prior art and that a domestic industry exists. He also issued a recommended determination on remedy and bonding. On July 8, 2005, the Commission issued notice that it had determined not to review the ALJ’s final ID on violation, thereby finding a violation of Section 337. 70 FR 40731 (July 14, 2005). The Commission also requested briefing on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Id. Submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding were filed on July 18, 2005, by all parties. All parties filed response submissions on July 25, 2005. On August 8, 2005, the Commission terminated the investigation, and issued a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order covering respondent’s systems for detecting and removing viruses or worms, components thereof, and products containing same covered by claims 4, 7, 8, and 11–15 of the ‘600 patent. E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM 22DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 245 / Thursday, December 22, 2005 / Notices On September 13, 2005, complainant Trend Micro filed a complaint for enforcement proceedings of the Commission’s remedial orders. On October 7, 2005, the Commission determined to institute formal enforcement proceedings based on the complaint to determine whether Fortinet is in violation of the Commission’s cease and desist order issued in the investigation, and what if any enforcement measures are appropriate. On October 26, 2005, Fortinet filed a request for an advisory opinion under Commission Rule 210.79 (19 CFR 210.79) that would declare that Fortinet’s FortiGate products incorporating Fortinet’s newly redesigned anti-virus software do not infringe claims 4, 7, 8, and 11–15 of the ‘600 patent and, therefore, are not covered by the Commission’s cease and desist order and limited exclusion order, issued on August 8, 2005. The Commission has examined Fortinet’s request for an advisory opinion and has determined that the request complies with the requirements for institution of an advisory opinion proceeding under Commission rule 210.79(a). Accordingly, the Commission has determined to institute an advisory opinion proceeding and has referred Fortinet’s request to the presiding ALJ for issuance of an initial advisory opinion. This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and Commission rules 210.75(a) and 210.79(a), 19 CFR 210.75(a), 210.79(a). Issued: December 16, 2005. By order of the Commission. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E5–7715 Filed 12–21–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [USITC SE–05–047] Sunshine Act Meeting; Notice U.S. International Trade Commission. TIME AND DATE: January 4, 2006 at 11 a.m. PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205–2000. STATUS: Open to the public. MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1. Agenda for future meetings: none 2. Minutes cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:55 Dec 21, 2005 Jkt 208001 3. Ratification List 4. Inv. No. 731–TA–663 (Second Review) (Paper Clips from China)— briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determination and Commissioners’ opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on or before January 18, 2006.) 5. Outstanding action jackets: none In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting. Issued: December 20, 2005. By order of the Commission. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 05–24443 Filed 12–20–05; 3:17 pm] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Third Round De Minimis Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act Notice is hereby given that on December 2, 2005, a proposed Third Round De Minimis Consent Decree in United States v. Airco Co., et al. Civil Action No. 05–1671, was lodged with the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. This Consent Decree relates to three other matters before the same Court: United States v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., et al., C.A. No. 97–1863, United States v. Aetna, Inc., et al. No. 05–15, and United States v. Chevy Chase Cars, et al., C.A. No. 05–1222. All four matters are Superfund cost recovery actions commenced by the United States against potentially responsible parties relating to the Breslube Penn Superfund Site in Coraopolis, Moon Township, Pennsylvania. In the Airco Co., et al. action, the United States seeks the recovery of response costs incurred in connection with the Breslube Penn Superfund Site. The complaint alleges that each of the named defendants arranged for the treatment and/or disposal of wastes containing hazardous substances at the Site, within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 9607(a)(3). The complaint names 20 defendants, each of which have signed the proposed Third Round De Minimis Consent Decree. Under the Airco Co., et al. Decree, each of the named defendants would pay a proportionate share of all past and future response costs incurred and to be incurred at the PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 76077 Site, plus a premium. In return for these payments, each defendant would receive a covenant not to sue by the United States, subject to certain reservations of rights, and contribution protection from suit by other potentially responsible parties. The total recovery under this Consent Decree should be approximately $412,000. The Department of Justice will receive comments relating to this Consent Decree for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044–7611, attention: Lisa A. Cherup, and should refer to United States v. Airco Co., et al., D.J. Ref. 90–11–3–1762/ 3. The Airco Co., et al. Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney for Western District of Pennsylvania, at 700 Grant Street, Suite 400, Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (ask for Robert Eberhardt), and at U.S. EPA Region III’s Office, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA (ask for Mary Rugala). During the public comment period, the United States v. Airco Co., et al. consent decree, may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site, https:// www.usdoj.gov/enrd/open.html. A copy of the consent decree may also be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044–7611 or by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia Fleetwood (tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov), fax no. (202) 514–0097, phone confirmation number (202) 514–1547. In requesting a copy from the Consent Decree Library, please enclose a check in the amount of $11.00 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) for a full copy of the consent decree, or $6.50, for a copy without signature pages, payable to the U.S. Treasury. Robert Brook, Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division. [FR Doc. 05–24324 Filed 12–21–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–15–M E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM 22DEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 245 (Thursday, December 22, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76076-76077]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-7715]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Inv. No. 337-TA-510 (Advisory Opinion Proceedings)]


Systems for Detecting and Removing Viruses or Worms, Components 
Thereof, and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission 
Determination to Institute Advisory Opinion Proceedings

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined to institute advisory opinion proceedings in 
the above-captioned investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy P. Monaghan, Esq., Office of 
the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-3152. Copies of all 
nonconfidential documents filed in connection with this investigation 
are or will be available for inspection during official business hours 
(8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. 
International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20436, telephone 202-205-2000. Hearing-impaired persons are advised 
that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the 
Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. General information 
concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its 
Internet server (https://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this 
investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket 
(EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This investigation under section 337 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), was instituted by the 
Commission on June 3, 2004, based on a complaint filed by Trend Micro 
Inc. (``Trend Micro'') of Cupertino, California. 69 FR 32044-45 (June 
8, 2004). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 in the 
importation into the United States, the sale for importation into the 
United States, or the sale within the United States after importation 
of certain systems for detecting and removing computer viruses or 
worms, components thereof, and products containing same by reason of 
infringement of claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 5,623,600 (``the `600 
patent''). The notice of investigation named Fortinet of Sunnyvale, 
California as the sole respondent.
    On May 9, 2005, the ALJ issued his final initial determination 
(``ID'') finding a violation of section 337 based on his findings that 
claims 4, 7, 8, and 11-15 of the '600 patent are not invalid or 
unenforceable, and are infringed by respondent's products. The ALJ also 
found that claims 1 and 3 of the `600 patent are invalid as anticipated 
by prior art and that a domestic industry exists. He also issued a 
recommended determination on remedy and bonding.
    On July 8, 2005, the Commission issued notice that it had 
determined not to review the ALJ's final ID on violation, thereby 
finding a violation of Section 337. 70 FR 40731 (July 14, 2005). The 
Commission also requested briefing on the issues of remedy, the public 
interest, and bonding. Id. Submissions on the issues of remedy, the 
public interest, and bonding were filed on July 18, 2005, by all 
parties. All parties filed response submissions on July 25, 2005. On 
August 8, 2005, the Commission terminated the investigation, and issued 
a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order covering 
respondent's systems for detecting and removing viruses or worms, 
components thereof, and products containing same covered by claims 4, 
7, 8, and 11-15 of the `600 patent.

[[Page 76077]]

    On September 13, 2005, complainant Trend Micro filed a complaint 
for enforcement proceedings of the Commission's remedial orders. On 
October 7, 2005, the Commission determined to institute formal 
enforcement proceedings based on the complaint to determine whether 
Fortinet is in violation of the Commission's cease and desist order 
issued in the investigation, and what if any enforcement measures are 
appropriate.
    On October 26, 2005, Fortinet filed a request for an advisory 
opinion under Commission Rule 210.79 (19 CFR 210.79) that would declare 
that Fortinet's FortiGate products incorporating Fortinet's newly 
redesigned anti-virus software do not infringe claims 4, 7, 8, and 11-
15 of the `600 patent and, therefore, are not covered by the 
Commission's cease and desist order and limited exclusion order, issued 
on August 8, 2005.
    The Commission has examined Fortinet's request for an advisory 
opinion and has determined that the request complies with the 
requirements for institution of an advisory opinion proceeding under 
Commission rule 210.79(a). Accordingly, the Commission has determined 
to institute an advisory opinion proceeding and has referred Fortinet's 
request to the presiding ALJ for issuance of an initial advisory 
opinion.
    This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and Commission rules 210.75(a) and 
210.79(a), 19 CFR 210.75(a), 210.79(a).

    Issued: December 16, 2005.

    By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
 [FR Doc. E5-7715 Filed 12-21-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.