Certain Refrigerators and Components Thereof; Notice of Commission Determination To Review in Its Entirety a Final Determination on Remand Finding No Violation of Section 337; Schedule for Briefing on the Issues on Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding, 67250-67251 [E9-30139]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
67250
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 242 / Friday, December 18, 2009 / Notices
Issued: December 14, 2009.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9–30141 Filed 12–17–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–632]
Certain Refrigerators and Components
Thereof; Notice of Commission
Determination To Review in Its Entirety
a Final Determination on Remand
Finding No Violation of Section 337;
Schedule for Briefing on the Issues on
Review and on Remedy, the Public
Interest, and Bonding
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review
in its entirety the presiding
administrative law judge’s (‘‘ALJ’’) final
initial determination (‘‘ID’’) on remand
issued on October 9, 2009, in the abovecaptioned investigation. The
Commission is also requesting briefing
on one issue on review and on remedy,
the public interest, and bonding.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Megan M. Valentine, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
708–2301. Copies of the ALJ’s IDs and
all other non-confidential 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. General
information concerning the Commission
may also be obtained by accessing its
Internet server at 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. Hearing-impaired
persons are advised that information on
this matter can be obtained by
contacting the Commission’s TDD
terminal on (202) 205–1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
February 21, 2008, the Commission
instituted this investigation, based on a
complaint filed by Whirlpool Patents
Company of St. Joseph, Michigan;
Whirlpool Manufacturing Corporation
of St. Joseph, Michigan; Whirlpool
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:33 Dec 17, 2009
Jkt 220001
Corporation of Benton Harbor,
Michigan, and Maytag Corporation of
Benton Harbor, Michigan (collectively,
‘‘Whirlpool’’). The complaint, as
supplemented, alleged violations of
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19
U.S.C.* 1337, based upon the
importation into the United States, the
sale for importation, and the sale within
the United States after importation of
certain refrigerators and components
thereof that infringe certain claims of
U.S. Patent Nos. 6,082,130 (‘‘the ’130
patent); 6,810,680 (‘‘the ’680 patent’’);
6,915,644 (‘‘the ’644 patent’’); 6,971,730
(‘‘the ’730 patent’’); and 7,240,980 (‘‘the
’980 patent’’). Whirlpool named LG
Electronics, Inc.; LG Electronics, USA,
Inc.; and LG Electronics Monterrey
Mexico, S.A., De, CV (collectively,
‘‘LG’’) as respondents. The complaint, as
supplemented, further alleged that an
industry in the United States exists as
required by subsection (a)(2) of Section
337 and requested that the Commission
issue an exclusion order and cease and
desist orders.
On May 1, 2008, Whirlpool filed a
motion to partially terminate the
investigation based on their withdrawal
of the ’730 patent and the ’980 patent.
On June 9, 2009, the ALJ issued an ID,
Order No. 8, terminating the
investigation, in part, as to the ’730 and
’980 patents. LG supported the motion.
On June 24, 2008, the Commission
determined not to review Order No. 8.
On September 11, 2008, Whirlpool
and LG filed a joint motion seeking
termination of this investigation with
respect to the ‘680 patent and the ‘644
patent on the basis of a settlement
agreement. On September 25, 2008, the
ALJ issued an ID, Order No. 10,
terminating the investigation, in part, as
to the ‘680 and ‘644 patents. No
petitions for review were filed. On
October 27, 2008, the Commission
determined not to review Order No. 10.
On October 17, 2008, Whirlpool filed
a motion for summary determination
that it had satisfied the importation
requirement. On November 20, 2008,
the ALJ issued an ID, Order No. 14,
granting complainant’s motion for
summary determination of importation.
No petitions for review were filed. On
December 15, 2008, the Commission
issued notice that it had determined not
to review Order No. 14.
On July 24, 2008, Whirlpool filed a
motion seeking leave to amend the
complaint and notice of investigation to
(1) remove references to patents that had
been withdrawn from this investigation;
(2) add a reference to a non-exclusive
license that relates to two patents at
issue; and (3) update the current state of
the domestic industry. On November 25,
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2008, the ALJ issued Order No. 15, in
which he granted Whirlpool’s motion as
to (1) and (3) above and denied it with
respect to (2). No petitions for review
were filed. The Commission determined
not to review the subject ID on
December 15, 2008.
On February 26, 2009, the ALJ issued
a final ID, in which he found no
violation of Section 337. On March 11,
2009, Whirlpool filed a petition for
review, and LG filed a contingent
petition for review. Whirlpool, LG and
the Commission investigative attorney
(‘‘IA’’) filed responses. On April 27,
2009, the Commission determined to
review the final ID in its entirety. 74 FR
20345–6 (May 1, 2009). In particular,
the Commission was concerned with the
ALJ’s claim construction of the terms
‘‘freezer compartment,’’ ‘‘disposed
within the freezer compartment,’’ and
‘‘ice storage bin having a bottom
opening.’’ The Commission asked the
parties to address several questions
concerning claim construction.
After receiving briefing from the
parties, the Commission determined to
modify the ALJ’s claim constructions of
the terms ‘‘freezer compartment,’’
‘‘disposed within the freezer
compartment,’’ and ‘‘ice storage bin
having a bottom opening,’’ determined
to affirm the final ID’s construction of
the term ‘‘ice maker,’’ and determined to
remand the investigation to the ALJ to
make findings regarding infringement,
validity, and domestic industry
consistent with the Commission’s claim
constructions. The Commission further
ordered the ALJ to issue a remand ID
(‘‘RID’’) on violation and a
recommended determination on remedy
and bonding. The Commission also
issued an Opinion detailing its reasons
for modifying the claim constructions.
On July 22, LG filed a petition for
reconsideration of the Commission’s
decision to modify the ALJ’s claim
constructions of the phrases ‘‘freezer
compartment’’ and ‘‘disposed within the
freezer compartment.’’ On August 28,
2009, the Commission denied LG’s
petition.
On October 9, 2009, the ALJ issued
his RID, in which he found no violation
of Section 337. Specifically, the ALJ
found that the accused refrigerators and
components thereof do not infringe
claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 9 of the ‘130
patent literally or under the doctrine of
equivalents. The ALJ also found that
claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 9 of the ‘130 patent
are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 103 for
obviousness, but that claim 8 of the ‘130
patent is not invalid under 35 U.S.C.
103. The ALJ further found that a
domestic industry exists.
E:\FR\FM\18DEN1.SGM
18DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 242 / Friday, December 18, 2009 / Notices
On October 26, 2009, Whirlpool filed
a petition for review challenging the
RID’s conclusion of non-infringement
and obviousness. LG also filed a
contingent petition for review
challenging the ALJ’s findings
concerning non-obviousness and his
conclusion that a domestic industry
exists. On November 3, 2009, LG filed
a response to Whirlpool’s petition. On
November 4, 2009, Whirlpool filed a
response to LG’s petition. On November
6, 2009, the IA filed a combined
response to both petitions.
Having examined the record of this
investigation, including the ALJ’s final
RID, the Commission has determined to
review the RID in its entirety.
The parties are requested to brief their
positions on the issues under review
with reference to the applicable law and
the evidentiary record. In connection
with its review, the Commission is
particularly interested in responses to
the following question:
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Does the prior art of record show an ice
discharge chute, as recited in claim 2 of the
‘130 patent, that is separate from and below
the bottom opening of the ice storage bin?
Can this prior art be combined with the
Hitachi reference, or any other prior art
references that are currently in the record, to
render claim 2 obvious?
In connection with the final
disposition of this investigation, the
Commission may (1) issue an order that
could result in the exclusion of the
subject articles from entry into the
United States, and/or (2) issue one or
more cease and desist orders that could
result in the respondent(s) being
required to cease and desist from
engaging in unfair acts in the
importation and sale of such articles.
Accordingly, the Commission is
interested in receiving written
submissions that address the form of
remedy, if any, that should be ordered.
If a party seeks exclusion of an article
from entry into the United States for
purposes other than entry for
consumption, the party should so
indicate and provide information
establishing that activities involving
other types of entry either are adversely
affecting it or likely to do so. For
background, see In the Matter of Certain
Devices for Connecting Computers via
Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360,
USITC Pub. No. 2843 (December 1994)
(Commission Opinion).
If the Commission contemplates some
form of remedy, it must consider the
effects of that remedy upon the public
interest. The factors the Commission
will consider include the effect that an
exclusion order and/or cease and desist
orders would have on (1) the public
health and welfare, (2) competitive
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:33 Dec 17, 2009
Jkt 220001
conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S.
production of articles that are like or
directly competitive with those that are
subject to investigation, and (4) U.S.
consumers. The Commission is
therefore interested in receiving written
submissions that address the
aforementioned public interest factors
in the context of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form
of remedy, the U.S. Trade
Representative, as delegated by the
President, has 60 days to approve or
disapprove the Commission’s action.
See Presidential Memorandum of July
21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005).
During this period, the subject articles
would be entitled to enter the United
States under bond, in an amount
determined by the Commission and
prescribed by the Secretary of the
Treasury. The Commission is therefore
interested in receiving submissions
concerning the amount of the bond that
should be imposed if a remedy is
ordered.
Written Submissions: The parties to
the investigation are requested to file
written submissions on the issue
identified in this notice. Parties to the
investigation, interested government
agencies, and any other interested
parties are encouraged to file written
submissions on the issues of remedy,
the public interest, and bonding. Such
submissions should address the
recommended determination by the ALJ
on remedy and bonding.
Complainants and the IA are also
requested to submit proposed remedial
orders for the Commission’s
consideration. Complainants are also
requested to state the dates that the
patents expire and the HTSUS numbers
under which the accused products are
imported. The written submissions and
proposed remedial orders must be filed
no later than close of business on
Wednesday, December 30, 2009. Reply
submissions must be filed no later than
the close of business on Thursday,
January 7, 2010. No further submissions
on these issues will be permitted unless
otherwise ordered by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions
must file the original document and 12
true copies thereof on or before the
deadlines stated above with the Office
of the Secretary. Any person desiring to
submit a document 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 *210.6.
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
67251
Documents for which confidential
treatment by the Commission is sought
will be treated accordingly. All
nonconfidential written submissions
will be available for public inspection at
the Office of the Secretary.
The authority for the Commission’s
determination is contained in Section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in
section 210.42–46 of the Commission’s
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.42–46).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: December 14, 2009.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E9–30139 Filed 12–17–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS
ADMINISTRATION
Records Schedules; Availability and
Request for Comments
AGENCY: National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA).
ACTION: Notice of availability of
proposed records schedules; request for
comments.
SUMMARY: The National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA)
publishes notice at least once monthly
of certain Federal agency requests for
records disposition authority (records
schedules). Once approved by NARA,
records schedules provide mandatory
instructions on what happens to records
when no longer needed for current
Government business. They authorize
the preservation of records of
continuing value in the National
Archives of the United States and the
destruction, after a specified period, of
records lacking administrative, legal,
research, or other value. Notice is
published for records schedules in
which agencies propose to destroy
records not previously authorized for
disposal or reduce the retention period
of records already authorized for
disposal. NARA invites public
comments on such records schedules, as
required by 44 U.S.C. 3303a(a).
DATES: Requests for copies must be
received in writing on or before January
19, 2010. Once the appraisal of the
records is completed, NARA will send
a copy of the schedule. NARA staff
usually prepare appraisal
memorandums that contain additional
information concerning the records
covered by a proposed schedule. These,
too, may be requested and will be
provided once the appraisal is
E:\FR\FM\18DEN1.SGM
18DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 242 (Friday, December 18, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67250-67251]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-30139]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-632]
Certain Refrigerators and Components Thereof; Notice of
Commission Determination To Review in Its Entirety a Final
Determination on Remand Finding No Violation of Section 337; Schedule
for Briefing on the Issues on Review and on Remedy, the Public
Interest, and Bonding
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review in its entirety the presiding
administrative law judge's (``ALJ'') final initial determination
(``ID'') on remand issued on October 9, 2009, in the above-captioned
investigation. The Commission is also requesting briefing on one issue
on review and on remedy, the public interest, and bonding.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Megan M. Valentine, Esq., Office of
the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2301. Copies of the
ALJ's IDs and all other non-confidential 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. General information
concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its
Internet server at 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. Hearing-impaired persons are advised
that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the
Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 21, 2008, the Commission
instituted this investigation, based on a complaint filed by Whirlpool
Patents Company of St. Joseph, Michigan; Whirlpool Manufacturing
Corporation of St. Joseph, Michigan; Whirlpool Corporation of Benton
Harbor, Michigan, and Maytag Corporation of Benton Harbor, Michigan
(collectively, ``Whirlpool''). The complaint, as supplemented, alleged
violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C.* 1337,
based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for
importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of
certain refrigerators and components thereof that infringe certain
claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,082,130 (``the '130 patent); 6,810,680
(``the '680 patent''); 6,915,644 (``the '644 patent''); 6,971,730
(``the '730 patent''); and 7,240,980 (``the '980 patent''). Whirlpool
named LG Electronics, Inc.; LG Electronics, USA, Inc.; and LG
Electronics Monterrey Mexico, S.A., De, CV (collectively, ``LG'') as
respondents. The complaint, as supplemented, further alleged that an
industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2)
of Section 337 and requested that the Commission issue an exclusion
order and cease and desist orders.
On May 1, 2008, Whirlpool filed a motion to partially terminate the
investigation based on their withdrawal of the '730 patent and the '980
patent. On June 9, 2009, the ALJ issued an ID, Order No. 8, terminating
the investigation, in part, as to the '730 and '980 patents. LG
supported the motion. On June 24, 2008, the Commission determined not
to review Order No. 8.
On September 11, 2008, Whirlpool and LG filed a joint motion
seeking termination of this investigation with respect to the `680
patent and the `644 patent on the basis of a settlement agreement. On
September 25, 2008, the ALJ issued an ID, Order No. 10, terminating the
investigation, in part, as to the `680 and `644 patents. No petitions
for review were filed. On October 27, 2008, the Commission determined
not to review Order No. 10.
On October 17, 2008, Whirlpool filed a motion for summary
determination that it had satisfied the importation requirement. On
November 20, 2008, the ALJ issued an ID, Order No. 14, granting
complainant's motion for summary determination of importation. No
petitions for review were filed. On December 15, 2008, the Commission
issued notice that it had determined not to review Order No. 14.
On July 24, 2008, Whirlpool filed a motion seeking leave to amend
the complaint and notice of investigation to (1) remove references to
patents that had been withdrawn from this investigation; (2) add a
reference to a non-exclusive license that relates to two patents at
issue; and (3) update the current state of the domestic industry. On
November 25, 2008, the ALJ issued Order No. 15, in which he granted
Whirlpool's motion as to (1) and (3) above and denied it with respect
to (2). No petitions for review were filed. The Commission determined
not to review the subject ID on December 15, 2008.
On February 26, 2009, the ALJ issued a final ID, in which he found
no violation of Section 337. On March 11, 2009, Whirlpool filed a
petition for review, and LG filed a contingent petition for review.
Whirlpool, LG and the Commission investigative attorney (``IA'') filed
responses. On April 27, 2009, the Commission determined to review the
final ID in its entirety. 74 FR 20345-6 (May 1, 2009). In particular,
the Commission was concerned with the ALJ's claim construction of the
terms ``freezer compartment,'' ``disposed within the freezer
compartment,'' and ``ice storage bin having a bottom opening.'' The
Commission asked the parties to address several questions concerning
claim construction.
After receiving briefing from the parties, the Commission
determined to modify the ALJ's claim constructions of the terms
``freezer compartment,'' ``disposed within the freezer compartment,''
and ``ice storage bin having a bottom opening,'' determined to affirm
the final ID's construction of the term ``ice maker,'' and determined
to remand the investigation to the ALJ to make findings regarding
infringement, validity, and domestic industry consistent with the
Commission's claim constructions. The Commission further ordered the
ALJ to issue a remand ID (``RID'') on violation and a recommended
determination on remedy and bonding. The Commission also issued an
Opinion detailing its reasons for modifying the claim constructions.
On July 22, LG filed a petition for reconsideration of the
Commission's decision to modify the ALJ's claim constructions of the
phrases ``freezer compartment'' and ``disposed within the freezer
compartment.'' On August 28, 2009, the Commission denied LG's petition.
On October 9, 2009, the ALJ issued his RID, in which he found no
violation of Section 337. Specifically, the ALJ found that the accused
refrigerators and components thereof do not infringe claims 1, 2, 4, 6,
8, and 9 of the `130 patent literally or under the doctrine of
equivalents. The ALJ also found that claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 9 of the
`130 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 103 for obviousness, but that
claim 8 of the `130 patent is not invalid under 35 U.S.C. 103. The ALJ
further found that a domestic industry exists.
[[Page 67251]]
On October 26, 2009, Whirlpool filed a petition for review
challenging the RID's conclusion of non-infringement and obviousness.
LG also filed a contingent petition for review challenging the ALJ's
findings concerning non-obviousness and his conclusion that a domestic
industry exists. On November 3, 2009, LG filed a response to
Whirlpool's petition. On November 4, 2009, Whirlpool filed a response
to LG's petition. On November 6, 2009, the IA filed a combined response
to both petitions.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the
ALJ's final RID, the Commission has determined to review the RID in its
entirety.
The parties are requested to brief their positions on the issues
under review with reference to the applicable law and the evidentiary
record. In connection with its review, the Commission is particularly
interested in responses to the following question:
Does the prior art of record show an ice discharge chute, as
recited in claim 2 of the `130 patent, that is separate from and
below the bottom opening of the ice storage bin? Can this prior art
be combined with the Hitachi reference, or any other prior art
references that are currently in the record, to render claim 2
obvious?
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the
Commission may (1) issue an order that could result in the exclusion of
the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2)
issue one or more cease and desist orders that could result in the
respondent(s) being required to cease and desist from engaging in
unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly,
the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that
address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party
seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for
purposes other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate
and provide information establishing that activities involving other
types of entry either are adversely affecting it or likely to do so.
For background, see In the Matter of Certain Devices for Connecting
Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-360, USITC Pub. No. 2843
(December 1994) (Commission Opinion).
If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must
consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The
factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an
exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders would have on (1) the
public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S.
economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly
competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S.
consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written
submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in
the context of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade
Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve
or disapprove the Commission's action. See Presidential Memorandum of
July 21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). During this period, the
subject articles would be entitled to enter the United States under
bond, in an amount determined by the Commission and prescribed by the
Secretary of the Treasury. The Commission is therefore interested in
receiving submissions concerning the amount of the bond that should be
imposed if a remedy is ordered.
Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation are requested
to file written submissions on the issue identified in this notice.
Parties to the investigation, interested government agencies, and any
other interested parties are encouraged to file written submissions on
the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Such
submissions should address the recommended determination by the ALJ on
remedy and bonding.
Complainants and the IA are also requested to submit proposed
remedial orders for the Commission's consideration. Complainants are
also requested to state the dates that the patents expire and the HTSUS
numbers under which the accused products are imported. The written
submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than
close of business on Wednesday, December 30, 2009. Reply submissions
must be filed no later than the close of business on Thursday, January
7, 2010. No further submissions on these issues will be permitted
unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document
and 12 true copies thereof on or before the deadlines stated above with
the Office of the Secretary. Any person desiring to submit a document
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 *210.6.
Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is sought
will be treated accordingly. All nonconfidential written submissions
will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in
Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and
in section 210.42-46 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 210.42-46).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: December 14, 2009.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E9-30139 Filed 12-17-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
