In the Matter of Certain Machine Vision Software, Machine Vision Systems, and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Decision To Modify a Final Initial Determination and To Terminate the Investigation With a Finding of No Violation of Section 337, 71146-71147 [2010-29302]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
71146
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Notices
Public Disclosure
Before including your name, address,
phone number, e-mail address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment—including your
personal identifying information—may
be publicly available at any time. While
you can ask us in your comment to
withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
Dated: October 6, 2010.
Anastasia T. Leigh,
Acting Regional Environmental Officer, MidPacific Region.
[FR Doc. 2010–29330 Filed 11–19–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–1174–1175
(Final)]
Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and
Tube From China and Mexico
Determinations
On the basis of the record 1 developed
in the subject investigations, the United
States International Trade Commission
(‘‘Commission’’) determines, pursuant to
section 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930
(19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)) (the Act), that an
industry in the United States is
threatened with material injury 2 3 4 by
reason of imports of seamless refined
copper pipe and tube (‘‘SRC pipe and
tube’’) from China and Mexico provided
for in subheadings 7411.10.10 and
8415.90.80 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States, that have
been found by the Department of
Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) to be sold in
the United States at less than fair value
(‘‘LTFV’’).
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Background
The Commission instituted these
investigations effective on September
30, 2009, following receipt of a petition
filed with the Commission and
Commerce by Cerro Flow Products, Inc.,
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 Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun, Vice Chairman
Irving A. Williamson, Commissioner Daniel R.
Pearson, and Commissioner Shara L. Aranoff
determine that they would not have found material
injury but for the suspension of liquidation.
3 Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane determines that
the domestic SRC pipe and tube industry is
materially injured by reason of imports of the
subject merchandise from China and Mexico.
4 Commissioner Dean A. Pinkert did not
participate in these investigations.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
St. Louis, MO; Kobe Wieland Copper
Products, LLC, Pine Hall, NC; Mueller
Copper Tube Products, Inc. and Mueller
Copper Tube Company, Inc., Memphis,
TN. The final phase of these
investigations was scheduled by the
Commission following notification of
preliminary determinations by
Commerce that imports of SRC pipe and
tube from China and Mexico were being
sold at LTFV within the meaning of
section 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C.
1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of
the final phase of the Commission’s
investigations 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 of June
11, 2010 (75 FR 33330). The hearing was
held in Washington, DC, on September
23, 2010, and all persons who requested
the opportunity were permitted to
appear in person or by counsel.
The Commission transmitted its
determinations in these investigation to
the Secretary of Commerce on
November 15, 2010. The views of the
Commission are contained in USITC
Publication 4193 (November 2010),
entitled Seamless Refined Copper Pipe
and Tube from China and Mexico:
Investigation Nos. 731–TA–1174–1175
(Final).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: November 15, 2010.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010–29301 Filed 11–19–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–680]
In the Matter of Certain Machine Vision
Software, Machine Vision Systems,
and Products Containing Same; Notice
of Commission Decision To Modify a
Final Initial Determination and To
Terminate the Investigation With a
Finding of No Violation of Section 337
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to modify
a final initial determination (‘‘ID’’) of the
presiding administrative law judge
(‘‘ALJ’’). The Commission has
determined that there is no violation of
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
U.S.C. 1337) in the above-captioned
investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
708–2310. Copies of 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: The
Commission instituted this investigation
on July 16, 2009 based on a complaint
filed on May 28, 2009, by Cognex
Corporation of Natick, Massachusetts
and Cognex Technology & Investment
Corporation of Mountain View,
California (collectively ‘‘complainants’’).
74 FR 34589–90 (July 16, 2009). The
complaint alleged violations of section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the
importation into the United States, the
sale for importation, and the sale within
the United States after importation of
certain machine vision software,
machine vision systems, or products
containing same by reason of
infringement of certain claims of U.S.
Patent Nos. 7,016,539 (‘‘the ’539 patent);
7,065,262 (‘‘the ’262 patent’’); and
6,959,112 (‘‘the ’112 patent’’). The
complaint further alleged that an
industry in the United States exists as
required by subsection (a)(2) of section
337.
The complaint named numerous
respondents including the following:
Multitest Elektronische Systems GmbH
of Germany and Multitest Electronic
Systems, Inc. of Santa Clara, California
(collectively, ‘‘Multitest respondents’’);
Yxlon International GmbH of Germany
and Yxlon International, Inc. of
Mogadore, Ohio (collectively, ‘‘Yxlon
respondents’’); Amistar Automation, Inc.
(‘‘Amistar’’) of San Marcos, California;
Techno Soft Systemnics, Inc. (‘‘Techno
Soft’’) of Japan; Fuji Machine
Manufacturing Co., Ltd. of Japan and
Fuji America Corporation of Vernon
E:\FR\FM\22NON1.SGM
22NON1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Notices
Hills, Illinois (collectively, ‘‘Fuji
respondents’’); E. Zoller GmbH & Co. KG
of Germany and Zoller, Inc. of Ann
Arbor, Michigan (collectively, ‘‘Zoller
respondents’’); IDS Imaging
Development Systems GmbH of
Germany and IDS Development
Systems, Inc. of Woburn, Massachusetts
(collectively, ‘‘IDS respondents’’); Delta
Design, Inc. (‘‘Delta’’) of Poway,
California; Subtechnique, Inc.
(‘‘Subtechnique’’) of Alexandria,
Virginia; Rasco GmbH (‘‘Rasco’’) of
Germany; MVTec Software GmbH of
Germany and MVTec LLC of Cambridge,
Massachusetts (collectively, ‘‘MVTech
respondents’’); Omron Corporation
(‘‘Omron’’) of Japan, Resolution
Technology, Inc. (‘‘Resolution’’) of
Dublin, Ohio; Visics Corp. (‘‘Visics’’) of
Wellesley, Massachusetts; Daiichi
Jitsugyo Viswill Co., Ltd. of Japan; and
Daiichi Jitsugyo (America), Inc. of Wood
Dale, Illinois (collectively, ‘‘Daiichi
respondents’’).
On November 19, 2009, the
Commission issued notice of its
decisions not to review IDs terminating
the investigation as to the Multitest
respondents and the Yxlon respondents
based on a consent order and settlement
agreement. On February 16, 2010, the
Commission issued notice of its
decisions not to review IDs terminating
the investigation as to Amistar based on
a consent order and settlement
agreement, and as to Techno Soft based
on partial withdrawal of the complaint.
On April 20, 2010, the Commission
issued notice of its decision not to
review an ID terminating the
investigation as to the Fuji respondents
based on a settlement agreement. On
May 5, 2010, the Commission issued
notice of its decisions not to review IDs
terminating the investigation as to the
Multitest respondents based on a
consent order and settlement agreement,
and as to the Zoller respondents, the
IDS respondents, and Delta based on
partial withdrawal of the complaint. On
June 11, 2010, the Commission issued
notice of its decision not to review an
ID terminating the investigation as to
Subtechnique based on a consent order.
On June 18, 2010, the Commission
issued notice of its decision not to
review an ID terminating the
investigation as to Rasco based on a
consent order and settlement agreement
(notice of rescission and issuance of
revised order on July 6, 2010).
The respondents remaining in the
investigation include: MVTec
respondents, Omron, Resolution, Visics,
and the Daiichi respondents.
On April 9, 2010, the Commission
issued notice of its decision not to
review an ID terminating the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 Nov 19, 2010
Jkt 223001
investigation as to the ’112 patent on the
basis of partial withdrawal of the
complaint. On April 20, 2010, the
Commission issued notice of its
decision not to review an ID granting
complainants’ motion for summary
determination on the economic prong of
the domestic industry requirement with
respect to the remaining asserted
patents, the ’539 and ’262 patents. On
May 18, 2010, the Commission issued
notice of its decision not to review an
ID granting complainants’ motion for
summary determination that the
importation element under Section
337(a)(1)(B) has been satisfied as to the
MVTech respondents, Omron, and the
Daiichi respondents.
On July 16, 2010, the ALJ issued his
final ID finding no violation of section
337 by the remaining respondents. He
concluded that each accused product
did not infringe any asserted claim of
the ’539 or ’262 patents. Also, he found
that claims 1, 12, 13, 28, and 29 of the
’262 patent are anticipated under 35
U.S.C. 102. Further, he found that all
asserted claims of both patents are
invalid, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 101, for
failure to claim patent-eligible subject
matter. On August 2, 2010,
complainants, respondents, and the
Commission investigative attorney each
filed a petition for review of the final ID.
Each party filed responses to the other
parties’ petitions on August 10, 2010.
On September 24, 2010, the
Commission issued notice of its
determination to review only the
following: (1) Relating to the ’539
patent, the ALJ’s construction of the
claim terms ‘‘test,’’ ‘‘match score
surface,’’ and ‘‘gradient direction,’’ all of
his infringement findings except for the
claim steps containing the limitations
‘‘locating local maxima’’ and ‘‘comparing
the magnitude of each local maxima,’’
and his invalidity and domestic
industry findings; (2) the ALJ’s finding
that the ’539 and ’262 patents are
invalid, pursuant to section 101, for
failure to claim patent-eligible subject
matter; and (3) the ALJ’s findings
concerning anticipation of claims 1, 12,
13, 28, and 29 of the ’262 patent.
The Commission requested the parties
to respond to a certain question
concerning issue (1) under review. 75
FR 60478–80 (September 30, 2010). On
October 8 and 15, 2010, respectively,
complainants, respondents, and the
Commission investigative attorney filed
briefs and reply briefs on the issue for
which the Commission requested
written submissions.
Having reviewed the record in this
investigation, including the final ID and
the parties’ briefing, the Commission
has determined to: (1) Modify-in-part
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
71147
the final ID and issue an Opinion
supplementing the ID’s analysis
concerning its finding that the ’539 and
’262 patents fail to claim patent-eligible
subject matter pursuant to section 101;
(2) set aside the ID’s finding that claims
1, 12, 13, 28, and 29 of the ’262 patent
are invalid as anticipated; and (3) affirm
all other findings of the ID under
review. The Commission terminates the
investigation with a finding of no
violation of section 337.
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
210.45 of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.45.
By order of the Commission.
Issued: November 16, 2010.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010–29302 Filed 11–19–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
United States Parole Commission
Record of Vote of Meeting Closure
(Pub. L. 94–409) (5 U.S.C. Sec. 552b)
I, Isaac Fulwood, of the United States
Parole Commission, was present at a
meeting of said Commission, which
started at approximately 10:30 a.m., on
Tuesday, November 9, 2010, at the U.S.
Parole Commission, 5550 Friendship
Boulevard, 4th Floor, Chevy Chase,
Maryland 20615. The purpose of the
meeting was to decide eleven petitions
for reconsideration pursuant to 28 CFR
2.27. Four Commissioners were present,
constituting a quorum when the vote to
close the meeting was submitted.
Public announcement further
describing the subject matter of the
meeting and certifications of General
Counsel that this meeting may be closed
by vote of the Commissioners present
were submitted to the Commissioners
prior to the conduct of any other
business. Upon motion duly made,
seconded, and carried, the following
Commissioners voted that the meeting
be closed: Isaac Fulwood, Cranston J.
Mitchell and Patricia K. Cushwa, J.
Patricia Wilson Smoot.
In witness whereof, I make this
official record of the vote taken to close
this meeting and authorize this record to
be made available to the public.
Dated: November 10, 2010.
Isaac Fuiwood,
Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010–29354 Filed 11–19–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–01–M
E:\FR\FM\22NON1.SGM
22NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 224 (Monday, November 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71146-71147]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29302]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-680]
In the Matter of Certain Machine Vision Software, Machine Vision
Systems, and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Decision To
Modify a Final Initial Determination and To Terminate the Investigation
With a Finding of No Violation of Section 337
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to modify a final initial determination
(``ID'') of the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ''). The
Commission has determined that there is no violation of section 337 of
the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the above-captioned
investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2310. Copies of 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: The Commission instituted this investigation
on July 16, 2009 based on a complaint filed on May 28, 2009, by Cognex
Corporation of Natick, Massachusetts and Cognex Technology & Investment
Corporation of Mountain View, California (collectively
``complainants''). 74 FR 34589-90 (July 16, 2009). The complaint
alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United States, the
sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after
importation of certain machine vision software, machine vision systems,
or products containing same by reason of infringement of certain claims
of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,016,539 (``the '539 patent); 7,065,262 (``the
'262 patent''); and 6,959,112 (``the '112 patent''). The complaint
further alleged that an industry in the United States exists as
required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
The complaint named numerous respondents including the following:
Multitest Elektronische Systems GmbH of Germany and Multitest
Electronic Systems, Inc. of Santa Clara, California (collectively,
``Multitest respondents''); Yxlon International GmbH of Germany and
Yxlon International, Inc. of Mogadore, Ohio (collectively, ``Yxlon
respondents''); Amistar Automation, Inc. (``Amistar'') of San Marcos,
California; Techno Soft Systemnics, Inc. (``Techno Soft'') of Japan;
Fuji Machine Manufacturing Co., Ltd. of Japan and Fuji America
Corporation of Vernon
[[Page 71147]]
Hills, Illinois (collectively, ``Fuji respondents''); E. Zoller GmbH &
Co. KG of Germany and Zoller, Inc. of Ann Arbor, Michigan
(collectively, ``Zoller respondents''); IDS Imaging Development Systems
GmbH of Germany and IDS Development Systems, Inc. of Woburn,
Massachusetts (collectively, ``IDS respondents''); Delta Design, Inc.
(``Delta'') of Poway, California; Subtechnique, Inc. (``Subtechnique'')
of Alexandria, Virginia; Rasco GmbH (``Rasco'') of Germany; MVTec
Software GmbH of Germany and MVTec LLC of Cambridge, Massachusetts
(collectively, ``MVTech respondents''); Omron Corporation (``Omron'')
of Japan, Resolution Technology, Inc. (``Resolution'') of Dublin, Ohio;
Visics Corp. (``Visics'') of Wellesley, Massachusetts; Daiichi Jitsugyo
Viswill Co., Ltd. of Japan; and Daiichi Jitsugyo (America), Inc. of
Wood Dale, Illinois (collectively, ``Daiichi respondents'').
On November 19, 2009, the Commission issued notice of its decisions
not to review IDs terminating the investigation as to the Multitest
respondents and the Yxlon respondents based on a consent order and
settlement agreement. On February 16, 2010, the Commission issued
notice of its decisions not to review IDs terminating the investigation
as to Amistar based on a consent order and settlement agreement, and as
to Techno Soft based on partial withdrawal of the complaint. On April
20, 2010, the Commission issued notice of its decision not to review an
ID terminating the investigation as to the Fuji respondents based on a
settlement agreement. On May 5, 2010, the Commission issued notice of
its decisions not to review IDs terminating the investigation as to the
Multitest respondents based on a consent order and settlement
agreement, and as to the Zoller respondents, the IDS respondents, and
Delta based on partial withdrawal of the complaint. On June 11, 2010,
the Commission issued notice of its decision not to review an ID
terminating the investigation as to Subtechnique based on a consent
order. On June 18, 2010, the Commission issued notice of its decision
not to review an ID terminating the investigation as to Rasco based on
a consent order and settlement agreement (notice of rescission and
issuance of revised order on July 6, 2010).
The respondents remaining in the investigation include: MVTec
respondents, Omron, Resolution, Visics, and the Daiichi respondents.
On April 9, 2010, the Commission issued notice of its decision not
to review an ID terminating the investigation as to the '112 patent on
the basis of partial withdrawal of the complaint. On April 20, 2010,
the Commission issued notice of its decision not to review an ID
granting complainants' motion for summary determination on the economic
prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the
remaining asserted patents, the '539 and '262 patents. On May 18, 2010,
the Commission issued notice of its decision not to review an ID
granting complainants' motion for summary determination that the
importation element under Section 337(a)(1)(B) has been satisfied as to
the MVTech respondents, Omron, and the Daiichi respondents.
On July 16, 2010, the ALJ issued his final ID finding no violation
of section 337 by the remaining respondents. He concluded that each
accused product did not infringe any asserted claim of the '539 or '262
patents. Also, he found that claims 1, 12, 13, 28, and 29 of the '262
patent are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102. Further, he found that all
asserted claims of both patents are invalid, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 101,
for failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter. On August 2, 2010,
complainants, respondents, and the Commission investigative attorney
each filed a petition for review of the final ID. Each party filed
responses to the other parties' petitions on August 10, 2010.
On September 24, 2010, the Commission issued notice of its
determination to review only the following: (1) Relating to the '539
patent, the ALJ's construction of the claim terms ``test,'' ``match
score surface,'' and ``gradient direction,'' all of his infringement
findings except for the claim steps containing the limitations
``locating local maxima'' and ``comparing the magnitude of each local
maxima,'' and his invalidity and domestic industry findings; (2) the
ALJ's finding that the '539 and '262 patents are invalid, pursuant to
section 101, for failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter; and
(3) the ALJ's findings concerning anticipation of claims 1, 12, 13, 28,
and 29 of the '262 patent.
The Commission requested the parties to respond to a certain
question concerning issue (1) under review. 75 FR 60478-80 (September
30, 2010). On October 8 and 15, 2010, respectively, complainants,
respondents, and the Commission investigative attorney filed briefs and
reply briefs on the issue for which the Commission requested written
submissions.
Having reviewed the record in this investigation, including the
final ID and the parties' briefing, the Commission has determined to:
(1) Modify-in-part the final ID and issue an Opinion supplementing the
ID's analysis concerning its finding that the '539 and '262 patents
fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter pursuant to section 101;
(2) set aside the ID's finding that claims 1, 12, 13, 28, and 29 of the
'262 patent are invalid as anticipated; and (3) affirm all other
findings of the ID under review. The Commission terminates the
investigation with a finding of no violation of section 337.
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 210.45 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,
19 CFR 210.45.
By order of the Commission.
Issued: November 16, 2010.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-29302 Filed 11-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
