Certain Compact Fluorescent Reflector Lamps, Products Containing Same and Components Thereof; Commission Determination To Review in Part A Final Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Schedule for Briefing on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding, 20908-20910 [2014-08298]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
20908
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 71 / Monday, April 14, 2014 / Notices
relief filed concurrently with the
complaint, requests that the
Commission issue a temporary limited
exclusion order and temporary cease
and desist order prohibiting the
importation into and the sale within the
United States after importation of
certain sulfentrazone, sulfentrazone
compositions, and processes for making
sulfentrazone that infringe claims 25–28
of the ’952 patent during the course of
the Commission’s investigation.
ADDRESSES: The complaint, except for
any confidential information contained
therein, is 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., Room
112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone
(202) 205–2000. Hearing impaired
individuals are advised that information
on this matter can be obtained by
contacting the Commission’s TDD
terminal on (202) 205–1810. Persons
with mobility impairments who will
need special assistance in gaining access
to the Commission should contact the
Office of the Secretary at (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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The
Office of Unfair Import Investigations,
U.S. International Trade Commission,
telephone (202) 205–2560.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Authority: The authority for institution of
this investigation is contained in section 337
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and
in section 210.10 of the Commission’s Rules
of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10
(2013).
Scope of Investigation: Having
considered the complaint, the U.S.
International Trade Commission, on
April 8, 2014, ordered that—
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, an investigation be instituted
to determine whether there is a
violation of subsection (a)(1)(B)(ii) of
section 337 in the importation into the
United States, the sale for importation,
or the sale within the United States after
importation of certain sulfentrazone,
sulfentrazone compositions, and
processes for making sulfentrazone by
reason of infringement of one or more of
claims 25–28 of the ’952 patent, and
whether an industry in the United
States exists as required by subsection
(a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to section 210.58 of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Apr 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
Procedure, 19 CFR 210.58, the motion
for temporary relief under subsection (e)
of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930,
which was filed with the complaint, is
provisionally accepted and referred to
the presiding administrative law judge
for investigation;
(3) For the purpose of the
investigation so instituted, the following
are hereby named as parties upon which
this notice of investigation shall be
served:
(a) The complainant is: FMC
Corporation, 1735 Market Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103.
(b) The respondents are the following
entities alleged to be in violation of
section 337, and are the parties upon
which the complaint is to be served:
Beijing Nutrichem Science and
Technology Stock Co., Ltd., Building
D–1, NO66 Xixiaokou Road, Haidian
District, Beijing, China 100192.
Summit Agro USA, LLC, 8000 Regency
Park, Suite 265, Cary, NC 27518.
Summit Agro North America, Holding
Corporation, 300 Madison Avenue,
4th Floor, New York, NY 10017.
Jiangxi Heyi Chemicals Co. Ltd., No. 43
Ji Shan Industry Park, Longcheng
Town, Penze County, Jiujiang City,
Jianxi Province, China 332700.
(c) The Office of Unfair Import
Investigations, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite
401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(3) For the investigation so instituted,
the Chief Administrative Law Judge,
U.S. International Trade Commission,
shall designate the presiding
Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint, the
motion for temporary relief, and the
notice of investigation must be
submitted by the named respondents in
accordance with sections 210.13 and
210.59 of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13
and 210.59. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16
(e), 210.13(a), and 210.59, such
responses will be considered by the
Commission if received not later than 10
days after the date of service by the
Commission of the complaint, the
motion for temporary relief, and the
notice of investigation. Extensions of
time for submitting responses to the
complaint, motion for temporary relief,
and the notice of investigation will not
be granted unless good cause therefor is
shown.
Failure of the respondent to file a
timely response to each allegation in the
complaint, in the motion for temporary
relief, and in this notice may be deemed
to constitute a waiver of the right to
appear and contest the allegations of the
complaint, the motion for temporary
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
relief, and this notice, and to authorize
the administrative law judge and the
Commission, without further notice to
the respondent, to find the facts to be as
alleged in the complaint, the motion for
temporary relief, and this notice and to
enter an initial determination and a
final determination containing such
findings, and may result in the issuance
of an exclusion order or a cease and
desist order or both directed against the
respondent.
Issued: April 9, 2014.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2014–08326 Filed 4–11–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–872]
Certain Compact Fluorescent Reflector
Lamps, Products Containing Same and
Components Thereof; Commission
Determination To Review in Part A
Final Initial Determination Finding a
Violation of Section 337; Schedule for
Briefing on the Issues Under Review
and on Remedy, the Public Interest,
and Bonding
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review
in part a final initial determination
(‘‘ID’’) issued by the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’),
finding a violation of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19
U.S.C. 1337, in this investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Needham, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
708–5468. 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 (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
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\14APN1.SGM
14APN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 71 / Monday, April 14, 2014 / Notices
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 March 5, 2013, based on a complaint
filed by Neptun Light, Inc., and Mr.
Andrzej Bobel (together, ‘‘Neptun’’) to
consider alleged violations of section
337 by reason of infringement of claims
1, 2, 10, and 11 of U.S. Patent No.
7,053,540 (‘‘the ’540 patent’’). 78 FR
14357–58. The Commission’s notice of
investigation named as respondents
Maxlite, Inc. (‘‘Maxlight’’); Satco
Products, Inc. (‘‘Satco’’); Litetronics
International, Inc. (‘‘Litetronics’’)
(together, ‘‘Respondents’’); and
Technical Consumer Products, Inc.
(‘‘TCP’’). Id. at 14358. The Office of
Unfair Import Investigations did not
participate in this investigation. Id.
On June 10, 2013, Neptun and TCP
moved to terminate the investigation
with respect to TCP on the basis of a
settlement agreement. The motion was
granted on June 11, 2013. Order No. 20,
not reviewed (July 8, 2013).
On February 3, 2014, the ALJ issued
his final initial determination (‘‘ID’’),
finding a violation of section 337.
Specifically, the ALJ found that Maxlite
and Satco violated section 337 with
respect to claims 1, 2 and 11 of the ’540
patent, and that Litetronics violated
section 337 with respect to claims 1, 2
and 10 of the ’540 patent. The ALJ
recommended that a limited exclusion
order issue against the infringing
products of Maxlite, Satco, and
Litetronics. He did not recommend the
issuance of any cease and desist orders.
On February 18, 2014, Respondents
petitioned for review of several of the
ALJ’s findings. Also on February 18,
2014, Neptun contingently petitioned
for review of the ALJ’s finding that
Neptun had not made a sufficient
showing on the economic prong of the
domestic injury requirement through 19
U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C). On February 26,
2014, Neptun and Respondents opposed
each other’s petitions.
Having examined the record of this
investigation, including the ALJ’s final
ID, the petitions for review, and the
responses thereto, the Commission has
determined to review the final ID in
part. Specifically, the Commission has
determined to review the ALJ’s findings
on the economic prong of the domestic
industry requirement, the ALJ’s
construction of ‘‘mating opening,’’ and
the ALJ’s findings on infringement. The
Commission has determined not to
review the remaining findings in the ID.
The parties are requested to brief their
positions on the issues under review
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Apr 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
with reference to the applicable law and
the evidentiary record. In connection
with its review, the Commission is
particularly interested in briefing on the
following issues:
1. Whether Neptun’s asserted
investments and expenditures were
made ‘‘with respect to the articles
protected by the [’540] patent’’ within
the meaning of 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3). In
doing so, please address the following:
‘‘Commission precedent requires that
expenses be allocated to each of the
products covered by the asserted
patents.’’ Certain Computer Forensic
Devices and Products Containing Same,
Inv. No. 337–TA–799, USITC Pub 4408,
Initial Determination at 10 (July 2013)
(unreviewed in relevant part). Please
provide a reasonable estimate, based on
the evidence of record, of the portion of
Neptun’s investments that are
associated with articles protected by the
’540 patent. Explain whether, and to
what extent, Neptun’s books and
records enable an accounting of
expenditures specific to the articles
protected by the ’540 patent.
2. Please explain why (or why not) the
relevant portion of Neptun’s asserted
investments and expenditures related to
the articles protected by the ’540 patent
are ‘‘significant’’ within the meaning of
19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(A) and (B) in the
context of the company, the industry, or
the realities of the marketplace. In doing
so, please identify the appropriate
methodology for assessing significance
here, and explain how the methodology
and the record evidence shows (or does
not show) that the investments with
respect to the articles protected by the
’540 patent are significant.
3. Whether Neptun made ‘‘substantial
investment’’ in ‘‘engineering’’ or
‘‘research and development’’ with
respect to the exploitation of the ’540
patent within the meaning of 19 U.S.C.
1337(a)(3)(C). Which of Neptun’s
asserted expenses constitute
investments that fall under 19 U.S.C.
1337(a)(3)(C), such as investments in
engineering, research and development,
or licensing? Please identify and
provide a reasonable estimate, based on
the evidence of record, of the portion of
these expenses that are associated with
the exploitation of the ’540 patent.
Please explain, qualitatively, how these
expenses and the underlying activities
that these expenses reflect—relate to
exploitation of the ’540 patent. Please
identity any such investments and
explain why (or why not) such
investments are substantial in the
context of the company, the industry, or
the realities of the marketplace.
4. Whether ‘‘a hole or aperture
through which the light source base is
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
20909
mated with the ballast housing’’ is an
appropriate construction for the term
‘‘mating opening’’ in the ’540 patent.
Additionally, using this construction,
explain how Respondents’ accused
products satisfy (or do not satisfy) the
‘‘mating opening’’ limitation, either
literally or under the doctrine of
equivalents.
5. Please explain how Respondents’
accused products satisfy (or do not
satisfy) the limitations ‘‘said cavity
having a first circumferential flange’’
and ‘‘the first circumferential flange of
the reflector cavity.’’ Specifically,
identify the evidence showing that the
asserted cavity and the first
circumferential flange of the accused
products have a sufficient relationship
such that there is a cavity ‘‘having a first
circumferential flange’’ and that the first
circumferential flange is ‘‘of the
reflector cavity.’’
6. Please explain how Respondents’
accused products satisfy (or do not
satisfy) the limitations ‘‘said base being
inside said defined cavity of said
reflector and located inside said mating
opening.’’ Specifically, identify the
evidence showing whether or not the
light source base is located inside the
reflector’s defined cavity and located
inside the mating opening either
literally or under the doctrine of
equivalents.
7. Please explain how Respondents’
accused products satisfy (or do not
satisfy) the limitations ‘‘said base having
a second circumferential flange’’ and
‘‘the second circumferential flange of
the light source base.’’ Specifically,
please identify the evidence showing
whether or not the asserted base and
second circumferential flange have a
sufficient relationship such that there is
a base ‘‘having a second circumferential
flange’’ and that the second
circumferential flange is ‘‘of the light
source base.’’
The parties have been invited to brief
only the discrete issues described above,
with reference to the applicable law and
evidentiary record. The parties are not
to brief other issues on review, which
are adequately presented in the parties’
existing filings.
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 a cease
and desist order that could result in the
respondent 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
E:\FR\FM\14APN1.SGM
14APN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
20910
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 71 / Monday, April 14, 2014 / Notices
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 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 a cease and
desist order 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 issues
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. The
complainants are also requested to
submit proposed remedial orders for the
Commission’s consideration. The
complainants are also requested to state
the date that the ’540 patent expires and
the HTSUS numbers under which the
accused products are imported. The
entirety of the parties’ written
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 Apr 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
submissions must not exceed 50 pages,
and must be filed no later than close of
business on April 22, 2014. Reply
submissions must not exceed 25 pages,
and must be filed no later than the close
of business on April 29, 2014. No
further submissions on these issues will
be permitted unless otherwise ordered
by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions
must file the original document
electronically on or before the deadlines
stated above and submit 8 true paper
copies to the Office of the Secretary by
noon the next day pursuant to section
210.4(f) of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to
the investigation number (‘‘Inv. No.
337–TA–872’’) in a prominent place on
the cover page and/or the first page. (See
Handbook for Electronic Filing
Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/
secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/
handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf).
Persons with questions regarding filing
should contact the Secretary (202–205–
2000).
Any person desiring to submit a
document to the Commission in
confidence must request confidential
treatment. All such requests should be
directed to the Secretary to 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 by the
Commission is properly sought will be
treated accordingly. A redacted nonconfidential version of the document
must also be filed simultaneously with
the any confidential filing. All nonconfidential written submissions will be
available for public inspection at the
Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.
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 Part
210 of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR Part
210).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: April 8, 2014.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2014–08298 Filed 4–11–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE
UNITED STATES
Meeting of the Judicial Conference
Committee on Rules of Practice and
Procedure
Judicial Conference of the
United States Committee on Rules of
Practice and Procedure.
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
AGENCY:
The Committee on Rules of
Practice and Procedure will hold a twoday meeting. The meeting will be open
to public observation but not
participation.
SUMMARY:
May 29–30, 2014.
Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
ADDRESSES: Thurgood Marshall Federal
Judiciary Building, Mecham Conference
Center, One Columbus Circle NE.,
Washington, DC 20544.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jonathan C. Rose, Rules Committee
Secretary, Rules Committee Support
Office, Administrative Office of the
United States Courts, Washington, DC
20544, telephone (202) 502–1820.
DATES:
Dated: April 9, 2014.
Jonathan C. Rose,
Rules Committee Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014–08350 Filed 4–11–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Notice of Lodging of Proposed
Settlement Agreement Under the
Federal Debt Collection Procedures
Act, Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability
Act, the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, and Other Statutes
On April 3, 2014, the Department of
Justice lodged a proposed settlement
agreement (the ‘‘Settlement
Agreement’’) with the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of New York in the matter
entitled Tronox Inc., et al., and United
States v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp., et
al., Bankruptcy Adversary Proceeding
No. 09–1198. This matter is part of the
bankruptcy case of Tronox Inc. and its
affiliates (collectively ‘‘Tronox’’), In re
Tronox Inc., et al., No. 09–10156, in the
same court.
The parties to the proposed
Settlement Agreement are Anadarko
Petroleum Corp., Kerr McGee
Corporation, and six related entities (the
‘‘Defendants’’), the United States, and
the Anadarko Litigation Trust. The
Settlement Agreement provides for
$5.15 billion dollars plus interest to be
E:\FR\FM\14APN1.SGM
14APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 71 (Monday, April 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20908-20910]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08298]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-872]
Certain Compact Fluorescent Reflector Lamps, Products Containing
Same and Components Thereof; Commission Determination To Review in Part
A Final Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337;
Schedule for Briefing on the Issues Under 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 part a final initial
determination (``ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law judge
(``ALJ''), finding a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in this investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Needham, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-5468. 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 (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
[[Page 20909]]
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 March 5, 2013, based on a complaint filed by Neptun Light, Inc., and
Mr. Andrzej Bobel (together, ``Neptun'') to consider alleged violations
of section 337 by reason of infringement of claims 1, 2, 10, and 11 of
U.S. Patent No. 7,053,540 (``the '540 patent''). 78 FR 14357-58. The
Commission's notice of investigation named as respondents Maxlite, Inc.
(``Maxlight''); Satco Products, Inc. (``Satco''); Litetronics
International, Inc. (``Litetronics'') (together, ``Respondents''); and
Technical Consumer Products, Inc. (``TCP''). Id. at 14358. The Office
of Unfair Import Investigations did not participate in this
investigation. Id.
On June 10, 2013, Neptun and TCP moved to terminate the
investigation with respect to TCP on the basis of a settlement
agreement. The motion was granted on June 11, 2013. Order No. 20, not
reviewed (July 8, 2013).
On February 3, 2014, the ALJ issued his final initial determination
(``ID''), finding a violation of section 337. Specifically, the ALJ
found that Maxlite and Satco violated section 337 with respect to
claims 1, 2 and 11 of the '540 patent, and that Litetronics violated
section 337 with respect to claims 1, 2 and 10 of the '540 patent. The
ALJ recommended that a limited exclusion order issue against the
infringing products of Maxlite, Satco, and Litetronics. He did not
recommend the issuance of any cease and desist orders.
On February 18, 2014, Respondents petitioned for review of several
of the ALJ's findings. Also on February 18, 2014, Neptun contingently
petitioned for review of the ALJ's finding that Neptun had not made a
sufficient showing on the economic prong of the domestic injury
requirement through 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C). On February 26, 2014,
Neptun and Respondents opposed each other's petitions.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the
ALJ's final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto,
the Commission has determined to review the final ID in part.
Specifically, the Commission has determined to review the ALJ's
findings on the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement,
the ALJ's construction of ``mating opening,'' and the ALJ's findings on
infringement. The Commission has determined not to review the remaining
findings in the ID.
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 briefing on the following issues:
1. Whether Neptun's asserted investments and expenditures were made
``with respect to the articles protected by the ['540] patent'' within
the meaning of 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3). In doing so, please address the
following: ``Commission precedent requires that expenses be allocated
to each of the products covered by the asserted patents.'' Certain
Computer Forensic Devices and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-
TA-799, USITC Pub 4408, Initial Determination at 10 (July 2013)
(unreviewed in relevant part). Please provide a reasonable estimate,
based on the evidence of record, of the portion of Neptun's investments
that are associated with articles protected by the '540 patent. Explain
whether, and to what extent, Neptun's books and records enable an
accounting of expenditures specific to the articles protected by the
'540 patent.
2. Please explain why (or why not) the relevant portion of Neptun's
asserted investments and expenditures related to the articles protected
by the '540 patent are ``significant'' within the meaning of 19 U.S.C.
1337(a)(3)(A) and (B) in the context of the company, the industry, or
the realities of the marketplace. In doing so, please identify the
appropriate methodology for assessing significance here, and explain
how the methodology and the record evidence shows (or does not show)
that the investments with respect to the articles protected by the '540
patent are significant.
3. Whether Neptun made ``substantial investment'' in
``engineering'' or ``research and development'' with respect to the
exploitation of the '540 patent within the meaning of 19 U.S.C.
1337(a)(3)(C). Which of Neptun's asserted expenses constitute
investments that fall under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C), such as
investments in engineering, research and development, or licensing?
Please identify and provide a reasonable estimate, based on the
evidence of record, of the portion of these expenses that are
associated with the exploitation of the '540 patent. Please explain,
qualitatively, how these expenses and the underlying activities that
these expenses reflect--relate to exploitation of the '540 patent.
Please identity any such investments and explain why (or why not) such
investments are substantial in the context of the company, the
industry, or the realities of the marketplace.
4. Whether ``a hole or aperture through which the light source base
is mated with the ballast housing'' is an appropriate construction for
the term ``mating opening'' in the '540 patent. Additionally, using
this construction, explain how Respondents' accused products satisfy
(or do not satisfy) the ``mating opening'' limitation, either literally
or under the doctrine of equivalents.
5. Please explain how Respondents' accused products satisfy (or do
not satisfy) the limitations ``said cavity having a first
circumferential flange'' and ``the first circumferential flange of the
reflector cavity.'' Specifically, identify the evidence showing that
the asserted cavity and the first circumferential flange of the accused
products have a sufficient relationship such that there is a cavity
``having a first circumferential flange'' and that the first
circumferential flange is ``of the reflector cavity.''
6. Please explain how Respondents' accused products satisfy (or do
not satisfy) the limitations ``said base being inside said defined
cavity of said reflector and located inside said mating opening.''
Specifically, identify the evidence showing whether or not the light
source base is located inside the reflector's defined cavity and
located inside the mating opening either literally or under the
doctrine of equivalents.
7. Please explain how Respondents' accused products satisfy (or do
not satisfy) the limitations ``said base having a second
circumferential flange'' and ``the second circumferential flange of the
light source base.'' Specifically, please identify the evidence showing
whether or not the asserted base and second circumferential flange have
a sufficient relationship such that there is a base ``having a second
circumferential flange'' and that the second circumferential flange is
``of the light source base.''
The parties have been invited to brief only the discrete issues
described above, with reference to the applicable law and evidentiary
record. The parties are not to brief other issues on review, which are
adequately presented in the parties' existing filings.
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 a cease and desist order that could result in the respondent
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
[[Page 20910]]
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 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 a cease and desist order 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 issues 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. The complainants are also requested to submit
proposed remedial orders for the Commission's consideration. The
complainants are also requested to state the date that the '540 patent
expires and the HTSUS numbers under which the accused products are
imported. The entirety of the parties' written submissions must not
exceed 50 pages, and must be filed no later than close of business on
April 22, 2014. Reply submissions must not exceed 25 pages, and must be
filed no later than the close of business on April 29, 2014. No further
submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered
by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document
electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8
true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day
pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the
investigation number (``Inv. No. 337-TA-872'') in a prominent place on
the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic
Filing Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf). Persons with questions
regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in
confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests
should be directed to the Secretary to 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
by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. A
redacted non-confidential version of the document must also be filed
simultaneously with the any confidential filing. All non-confidential
written submissions will be available for public inspection at the
Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.
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 Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
Part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: April 8, 2014.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2014-08298 Filed 4-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
