Certain Dimmable Compact Fluorescent Lamps and Products Containing Same; Commission Decision Finding a Violation of a Consent Order; Issuance of a Civil Penalty Order; Termination of Enforcement Proceeding, 21483-21484 [2014-08580]

Download as PDF pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 2014 / Notices Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group Number 1389, was accepted March 17, 2014. The plat representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of sections 9 and 15, Township 7 South, Range 3 West, of the Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group Number 1375, was accepted March 18, 2014. The plat representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the south boundary of the subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of section 34, and the metes-and-bounds survey of a portion of the as-built centerline of Mud Flat Road in section 34, Township 9 South, Range 2 West, of the Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group Number 1376, was accepted March 18, 2014. The plat representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the north and west boundaries and subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of section 7, and the metes-and-bounds survey of a portion of the boundary of the North Fork Owyhee Wilderness Area, Township 9 South, Range 4 West, of the Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group Number 1377, was accepted March 18, 2014. The supplemental plat prepared to show new lots 18, 19, and 20, in sec. 33, T. 29 N., R. 8 E., Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group Number 1414, was accepted March 19, 2014. The plat representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the west boundary and subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of section 7, Township 39 North, Range 2 West, of the Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group Number 1388, was accepted March 20, 2014. This survey was executed at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to meet their administrative needs. The lands surveyed are: The plat representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the west boundary, subdivisional lines, and subdivision of section 2, and the subdivision of sections 6 and 7, and the further subdivision of section 2, Township 34 North, Range 1 West, of the Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group Number 1385, was accepted February 5, 2014. These surveys were executed at the request of the National Park Service to meet their administrative needs. The lands surveyed are: The plat representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the south boundary, subdivisional lines, Tracts C and G in section 32, and Tract H in sections 32 and 33, and the subdivision of section 29, the metes-and-bounds survey of Tract 39, and the metes-andbounds survey of the southerly side of a road in Tract H in section 33, Township 8 South, Range 19 East, of the VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:20 Apr 15, 2014 Jkt 232001 Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group Number 1365, was accepted February 4, 2014. Dated: April 10, 2014. Stanley G. French, Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Idaho. [FR Doc. 2014–08595 Filed 4–15–14; 8:45 am] 21483 Dated: April 7, 2014. Tommy P. Beaudreau, Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. [FR Doc. 2014–08305 Filed 4–15–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P BILLING CODE 4310–GG–P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) Notice of Availability of the Proposed Notice of Sale (NOS) for Western Gulf of Mexico Planning Area (WPA) Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Lease Sale 238 (WPA Sale 238); MMAA 104000 INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–830 (Enforcement/Modification)] Certain Dimmable Compact Fluorescent Lamps and Products Containing Same; Commission Decision Finding a Violation of a Consent Order; Issuance of a Civil Penalty Order; Termination of Enforcement Proceeding U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: AGENCY: Notice of Availability of the Proposed Notice of WPA Sale 238. SUMMARY: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Interior. ACTION: BOEM announces the availability of the Proposed NOS for proposed WPA Sale 238. This Notice is published pursuant to 30 CFR 556.29(c) as a matter of information to the public. With regard to oil and gas leasing on the OCS, the Secretary of the Interior, pursuant to section 19 of the OCS Lands Act, provides affected States the opportunity to review the Proposed NOS. The Proposed NOS sets forth the proposed terms and conditions of the sale, including minimum bids, royalty rates, and rental rates. SUMMARY: Affected States may comment on the size, timing, and location of proposed WPA Sale 238 within 60 days following their receipt of the Proposed NOS. The Final NOS will be published in the Federal Register at least 30 days prior to the date of bid opening. Bid opening currently is scheduled for August 20, 2014. DATES: The Proposed NOS for WPA Sale 238 and a ‘‘Proposed Notice of Sale Package’’ containing information essential to potential bidders may be obtained from the Public Information Unit, Gulf of Mexico Region, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123–2394. Telephone: (504) 736– 2519. The Proposed NOS and ‘‘Proposed Notice of Sale Package’’ also are available on BOEM’s Web site at https://www.boem.gov/Sale-238/. Agency Contact: Robert Samuels, Chief, Leasing Division, Robert.Samuels@boem.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to affirmin-part and reverse-in-part an enforcement initial determination (‘‘EID’’) of the presiding administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) in the abovecaptioned proceeding finding a violation of a consent order. The Commission has issued a civil penalty order against respondent MaxLite, Inc. of Fairfield, New Jersey (‘‘MaxLite’’) in the amount of $10,000. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708–2532. 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 an investigation on February 27, 2012, based on a complaint filed by Andrzej Bobel and Neptun Light, Inc., both of Lake Forest, E:\FR\FM\16APN1.SGM 16APN1 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 21484 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 2014 / Notices Illinois (collectively, ‘‘Neptun’’). 77 FR 11587 (Feb. 27, 2012). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 19 U.S.C. 1337. More specifically, the complaint alleged that the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain dimmable compact fluorescent lamps (‘‘CFLs’’) and products containing the same infringe, inter alia, claim 9 of United States Patent No. 5,434,480 (‘‘the ’480 patent’’). The complaint named numerous respondents, including MaxLite, Inc. of Fairfield, New Jersey (‘‘MaxLite’’). On July 25, 2012, the Commission terminated the investigation with respect to MaxLite and entered a consent order preventing MaxLite from importing dimmable CFLs that infringe claim 9 of the ’480 patent. On February 6, 2013, MaxLite petitioned the Commission under Commission Rule 210.76 for modification of the consent order on the basis of certain district court proceedings regarding a covenant not to sue. On February 18, 2013, complainants filed a complaint requesting that the Commission institute a formal enforcement proceeding under Commission Rule 210.75(b) to investigate a violation of the consent order. On April 12, 2013, the Commission determined to institute consolidated formal enforcement and modification proceedings to determine whether MaxLite is in violation of the July 25, 2012 consent order issued in the investigation; what, if any, enforcement measures are appropriate; and whether to modify the consent order. 78 FR 24233 (Apr. 24, 2013). On January 10, 2014, the ALJ issued the EID in the combined enforcement and modification proceeding. Prior to the hearing, MaxLite effectively withdrew its request for modification. EID at 52. The ALJ therefore found MaxLite’s modification request to be ‘‘moot’’ in view of ‘‘the parties’ agreed interpretation of the Consent Order.’’ Id. The EID in all other respects dealt entirely with Neptun’s enforcement complaint. At issue for enforcement of the consent order were two accused types of products: certain CFL bulbs (‘‘CFL bulbs’’); and ‘‘dimmable CFL Faux Cans’’ (‘‘Faux Cans’’). The ALJ found that the CFL bulbs infringe claim 9 of the ’480 patent. The ALJ also found that Neptun had not demonstrated infringement by the Faux Cans. On January 23, 2014, Neptun filed a petition for review regarding claim construction and noninfringement by VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:20 Apr 15, 2014 Jkt 232001 the Faux Cans. On January 30, 2014, MaxLite and the Commission investigative attorney (‘‘IA’’) filed oppositions to Neptun’s petition. On February 26, 2014, the Commission determined to review the enforcement ID. The Commission notice requested briefing on certain patentrelated issues and on assessment of the civil penalty. 79 FR 12221, 12222 (Mar. 4, 2014). Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ALJ’s final EID, the petitions for review and responses thereto, and the parties’ briefing in response to the Commission notice of review, the Commission has determined to affirm-in-part and reverse-in-part the EID. In particular, the Commission reverses the ALJ’s finding that claim 9 has a ‘‘bi-directionality’’ requirement imposed by disavowal in the patent specification. The Commission likewise reverses that portion of the noninfringement determination regarding the Faux Cans predicated on that claim construction. The Commission affirms the ALJ’s determination that Neptun failed to demonstrate infringement even absent such a ‘‘bi-directionality’’ requirement. EID at 45–51. Further, the Commission has made its determination on the issues of remedy and the public interest. The Commission has determined to impose a civil penalty of $10,000 on MaxLite for violation of the consent order as to the accused CFL bulbs. A Commission opinion is forthcoming. The Commission has terminated the enforcement proceeding. 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). Order On April 12, 2013, the Commission determined to institute consolidated formal enforcement and modification proceedings to determine whether MaxLite, Inc. of Fairfield, New Jersey (‘‘MaxLite’’) is in violation of the July 25, 2012 consent order issued in the underlying investigation; what, if any, enforcement measures are appropriate; and whether to modify the consent order. 78 FR 24233 (Apr. 24, 2013). The matter was delegated to a presiding administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) for issuance of an enforcement ID (‘‘EID’’) in the combined enforcement and modification proceeding. On January 10, 2014, the ALJ issued the EID. Having reviewed the record in this investigation, including the EID and the PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 parties’ written submissions, the Commission has found a violation of the consent order by MaxLite. The Commission hereby orders that — 1. Respondent MaxLite shall forfeit and pay to the United States a civil penalty in the amount of $10,000. MaxLite and its affiliated companies, including but not limited to its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates and related companies, and successors or assigns shall have joint and several liability for the payment of this civil penalty. 2. The Secretary shall: (a) serve copies of this Order and supporting Opinion upon each party of record in this enforcement proceeding; and (b) publish notice of this Order in the Federal Register. By order of the Commission. Issued: April 10, 2014. Lisa R. Barton, Acting Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2014–08580 Filed 4–15–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–894] Certain Tires and Products Containing Same; Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation as to Shandong Hengyu Science & Technology Co., Ltd., the Sole Remaining Respondent, Based on a Settlement Agreement; Request for Written Submissions 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 not to review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 40) of the presiding administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) terminating the investigation as to the last remaining respondent in this investigation, Shandong Hengyu Science & Technology Co., Ltd., based on a settlement agreement. Several respondents were found in default during the course of the investigation, and the Commission requests written submissions on remedy, the public interest and bonding as to the defaulting respondents. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\16APN1.SGM 16APN1

Agencies

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 73 (Wednesday, April 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21483-21484]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08580]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-830 (Enforcement/Modification)]


Certain Dimmable Compact Fluorescent Lamps and Products 
Containing Same; Commission Decision Finding a Violation of a Consent 
Order; Issuance of a Civil Penalty Order; Termination of Enforcement 
Proceeding

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined to affirm-in-part and reverse-in-part an 
enforcement initial determination (``EID'') of the presiding 
administrative law judge (``ALJ'') in the above-captioned proceeding 
finding a violation of a consent order. The Commission has issued a 
civil penalty order against respondent MaxLite, Inc. of Fairfield, New 
Jersey (``MaxLite'') in the amount of $10,000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2532. 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 an investigation 
on February 27, 2012, based on a complaint filed by Andrzej Bobel and 
Neptun Light, Inc., both of Lake Forest,

[[Page 21484]]

Illinois (collectively, ``Neptun''). 77 FR 11587 (Feb. 27, 2012). The 
complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 
as amended 19 U.S.C. 1337. More specifically, the complaint alleged 
that the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, 
and the sale within the United States after importation of certain 
dimmable compact fluorescent lamps (``CFLs'') and products containing 
the same infringe, inter alia, claim 9 of United States Patent No. 
5,434,480 (``the '480 patent''). The complaint named numerous 
respondents, including MaxLite, Inc. of Fairfield, New Jersey 
(``MaxLite''). On July 25, 2012, the Commission terminated the 
investigation with respect to MaxLite and entered a consent order 
preventing MaxLite from importing dimmable CFLs that infringe claim 9 
of the '480 patent.
    On February 6, 2013, MaxLite petitioned the Commission under 
Commission Rule 210.76 for modification of the consent order on the 
basis of certain district court proceedings regarding a covenant not to 
sue. On February 18, 2013, complainants filed a complaint requesting 
that the Commission institute a formal enforcement proceeding under 
Commission Rule 210.75(b) to investigate a violation of the consent 
order.
    On April 12, 2013, the Commission determined to institute 
consolidated formal enforcement and modification proceedings to 
determine whether MaxLite is in violation of the July 25, 2012 consent 
order issued in the investigation; what, if any, enforcement measures 
are appropriate; and whether to modify the consent order. 78 FR 24233 
(Apr. 24, 2013).
    On January 10, 2014, the ALJ issued the EID in the combined 
enforcement and modification proceeding. Prior to the hearing, MaxLite 
effectively withdrew its request for modification. EID at 52. The ALJ 
therefore found MaxLite's modification request to be ``moot'' in view 
of ``the parties' agreed interpretation of the Consent Order.'' Id. The 
EID in all other respects dealt entirely with Neptun's enforcement 
complaint. At issue for enforcement of the consent order were two 
accused types of products: certain CFL bulbs (``CFL bulbs''); and 
``dimmable CFL Faux Cans'' (``Faux Cans'').
    The ALJ found that the CFL bulbs infringe claim 9 of the '480 
patent. The ALJ also found that Neptun had not demonstrated 
infringement by the Faux Cans.
    On January 23, 2014, Neptun filed a petition for review regarding 
claim construction and noninfringement by the Faux Cans. On January 30, 
2014, MaxLite and the Commission investigative attorney (``IA'') filed 
oppositions to Neptun's petition.
    On February 26, 2014, the Commission determined to review the 
enforcement ID. The Commission notice requested briefing on certain 
patent-related issues and on assessment of the civil penalty. 79 FR 
12221, 12222 (Mar. 4, 2014).
    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the 
ALJ's final EID, the petitions for review and responses thereto, and 
the parties' briefing in response to the Commission notice of review, 
the Commission has determined to affirm-in-part and reverse-in-part the 
EID. In particular, the Commission reverses the ALJ's finding that 
claim 9 has a ``bi-directionality'' requirement imposed by disavowal in 
the patent specification. The Commission likewise reverses that portion 
of the noninfringement determination regarding the Faux Cans predicated 
on that claim construction. The Commission affirms the ALJ's 
determination that Neptun failed to demonstrate infringement even 
absent such a ``bi-directionality'' requirement. EID at 45-51.
    Further, the Commission has made its determination on the issues of 
remedy and the public interest. The Commission has determined to impose 
a civil penalty of $10,000 on MaxLite for violation of the consent 
order as to the accused CFL bulbs. A Commission opinion is forthcoming.
    The Commission has terminated the enforcement proceeding. 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).

Order

    On April 12, 2013, the Commission determined to institute 
consolidated formal enforcement and modification proceedings to 
determine whether MaxLite, Inc. of Fairfield, New Jersey (``MaxLite'') 
is in violation of the July 25, 2012 consent order issued in the 
underlying investigation; what, if any, enforcement measures are 
appropriate; and whether to modify the consent order. 78 FR 24233 (Apr. 
24, 2013). The matter was delegated to a presiding administrative law 
judge (``ALJ'') for issuance of an enforcement ID (``EID'') in the 
combined enforcement and modification proceeding. On January 10, 2014, 
the ALJ issued the EID.
    Having reviewed the record in this investigation, including the EID 
and the parties' written submissions, the Commission has found a 
violation of the consent order by MaxLite. The Commission hereby orders 
that --
    1. Respondent MaxLite shall forfeit and pay to the United States a 
civil penalty in the amount of $10,000. MaxLite and its affiliated 
companies, including but not limited to its parents, subsidiaries, 
affiliates and related companies, and successors or assigns shall have 
joint and several liability for the payment of this civil penalty.
    2. The Secretary shall:
    (a) serve copies of this Order and supporting Opinion upon each 
party of record in this enforcement proceeding; and
    (b) publish notice of this Order in the Federal Register.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: April 10, 2014.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2014-08580 Filed 4-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.