Certain Motorized Self-Balancing Vehicles; Commission Determination To Review-in-Part an Initial Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; on Review, To Vacate One Portion of the Initial Determination and Take No Position on One Issue; and Affirmance of the Finding of No Violation and Termination of the Investigation, 36153-36154 [2017-16325]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 148 / Thursday, August 3, 2017 / Notices
recommendations related to the
subcommittee’s Section 321 Working
Group. The Section 321 Working Group
has focused on facilitative methods for
the processing of low value ‘‘deminimis’’ shipments while maintaining
security and compliance.
2. The One U.S. Government
Subcommittee will discuss the progress
of the Fish & Wildlife Service Working
Group and will present
recommendations in this area. The
subcommittee will also discuss the
progress of the Automated Commercial
Environment core functions and the
Single Window Effort, including the
North American Single Window
progress.
3. The Global Supply Chain
Subcommittee will present their
involvement in the present draft of an
updated supply chain security CustomsTrade Partnership Against Terrorism
(C–TPAT) best practice framework,
provide an update to on-going input
work regarding the C–TPAT minimum
security criteria, and a progress report
with recommendations from the
Pipeline Working Group.
4. The Trusted Trader Subcommittee
will continue the discussion for an
enhanced Trusted Trader program that
includes engagement with CBP to
include relevant partner government
agencies with a potential for
international interoperability. A review
of the pilot program status and benefits
will also be undertaken in parallel to
determine the optimum benefits that
would be assigned to Trusted Trader
participants.
5. The Trade Enforcement & Revenue
Collection (TERC) Subcommittee will
discuss the progress made on TERC
recommendations and updates from the
Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty,
Bond, Forced Labor, and Intellectual
Property Rights Working Groups.
6. The Exports Subcommittee will
discuss the Post Departure Filing (PDF)
working group’s progress in developing
additional recommendations for an
implementation plan of the PDF
Proposal and will include steps to
initiate a proof of concept that
incorporates the PDF model in
conjunction with the Ocean Export
Manifest pilot. The subcommittee will
also discuss the progress of the Truck
Manifest Sub-Working Group
recommendations presented at the
March 1, 2017 public meeting, and
progress on issues with the ongoing
manifest pilots.
Meeting materials will be available by
August 20, 2017, at: https://
www.cbp.gov/trade/stakeholderengagement/coac/coac-public-meetings.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Aug 02, 2017
Jkt 241001
Dated: July 27, 2017.
Bradley Hayes,
Executive Director, Office of Trade Relations.
[FR Doc. 2017–16360 Filed 8–2–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–14–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–1000]
Certain Motorized Self-Balancing
Vehicles; Commission Determination
To Review-in-Part an Initial
Determination Finding No Violation of
Section 337; on Review, To Vacate One
Portion of the Initial Determination and
Take No Position on One Issue; and
Affirmance of the Finding of No
Violation and Termination of the
Investigation
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to reviewin-part a final initial determination
(‘‘ID’’) of the presiding administrative
law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) finding no violation
of section 337. On review, the
Commission has determined to vacate
one portion of the ID and to take no
position with respect to one issue. The
Commission has also determined to
affirm the ID’s finding of no violation of
section 337 and has terminated the
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 May 26, 2016, based on a complaint
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
36153
filed on behalf of Razor USA LLC of
Cerritos, California; and Inventist, Inc.
and Shane Chen, both of Camas,
Washington. 81 FR 33548–49. The
complaint alleged violations of section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, by reason of
infringement of certain claims of U.S.
Patent No. 8,738,278 (‘‘the ’278 patent’’).
The complaint further alleged violations
of section 337 based upon false
advertising, misrepresentation, and
unfair competition, the threat or effect
of which is to destroy or substantially
injure an industry in the United States
or to prevent the establishment of such
an industry. The Commission’s notice of
investigation named the following
twenty-eight respondents: Contixo Co.
of Ontario, California and ZTO Store
a.k.a. ZTO Trading, Inc. of Monterey
Park, California (collectively,
‘‘Contixo’’); Joy Hoverboard a/k/a
Huizhou Aoge Enterprise Co. Ltd (‘‘Joy
Hoverboard’’) of Huizhou, China;
Shenzhen Chenduoxing Electronic
Technology Ltd. (‘‘Chenduoxing’’),
Shareconn International, Inc.
(‘‘Shareconn’’), and Shenzhen R.M.T.
Technology Co., Ltd. (‘‘RMT’’); all of
Guangdong, China; Cyboard LLC a/k/a
Shark Empire Inc. (‘‘Cyboard’’) of
Glendale, California; GyroGlyder.com
(‘‘GyroGlyder’’) of Stockton, California;
Soibatian Corporation d.b.a. IO Hawk
and d.b.a. Smart Wheels (‘‘Soibatian’’)
of Glendale, California; PhunkeeDuck,
Inc. (‘‘PhunkeeDuck’’) of Floral Park,
New York; Shenzhen Jomo Technology
Co., Ltd. (‘‘Jomo’’) of Shenzhen City,
China; Shenzhen Kebe Technology Co.,
Ltd. (‘‘Kebe’’) and Shenzhen Supersun
Technology Co. Ltd., a.k.a. Aottom
(‘‘Supersun’’), both of Shenzhen, China;
Twizzle Hoverboard (‘‘Twizzle’’) of La
Puente, California; Uwheels of Santa
Ana, California; InMotion Entertainment
Group LLC (‘‘InMotion’’) of Jacksonville,
Florida; HoverTech of Hebron,
Kentucky; Leray Group a/k/a ShanDao
Trading Co., Ltd. (‘‘Leray’’) of Beijing,
China; Spaceboard USA (‘‘Spaceboard’’)
of Norcross, Georgia; Genius
Technologies a.k.a. Prime Capital
(‘‘Genius Technologies’’) of Hastings,
Minnesota; Hangzhou Chic Intelligent
Co., Ltd. (‘‘Chic’’) of Hangzhou, China;
Swagway, LLC (‘‘Swagway’’) of South
Bend, Indiana; Modell’s Sporting Goods,
Inc. (‘‘Modell’s’’) of New York City, New
York; Powerboard a.k.a. Optimum
Trading Co. (‘‘Powerboard’’) of Hebron,
Kentucky; United Integral, Inc. dba
Skque Products (‘‘Skque’’) of Irwindale,
California; Alibaba Group Holding Ltd.
of Causeway Bay, Hong Kong and
Alibaba.com Ltd. of Hangzhou, China
(collectively, ‘‘Alibaba’’); Jetson Electric
E:\FR\FM\03AUN1.SGM
03AUN1
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
36154
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 148 / Thursday, August 3, 2017 / Notices
Bikes LLC (‘‘Jetson’’) of New York City,
New York; and Newegg, Inc.
(‘‘Newegg’’) of City of Industry,
California. The Office of Unfair Import
Investigations (‘‘OUII’’) is also a party to
the investigation. Id. Eight respondents
remain in the investigation, i.e., Chic,
Swagway, Modell’s, Powerboard, Skque,
Alibaba, Jetson, and Newegg
(collectively, ‘‘respondents’’). Every
other respondent was terminated from
the investigation based on a consent
order stipulation and proposed consent
order or good cause, or was found in
default.
On August 10 and November 17,
2016, respectively, the Commission
issued notice of its determinations not
to review the ALJ’s IDs (Order Nos. 11
and 22) terminating the investigation as
to Contixo based on a consent order
stipulation and proposed consent order,
and as to InMotion based on a consent
order stipulation, proposed consent
order, and settlement agreement. On
October 19 and 27, 2016, respectively,
the Commission issued notice of its
determinations not to review the ALJ’s
IDs (Order Nos. 19 and 20) terminating
the investigation as to claim 9 of the
’278 patent and claim 4 of the patent.
On September 7, October 11, and
December 13, 2016, respectively, the
Commission issued notice of its
determinations not to review the ALJ’s
IDs (Order Nos. 14, 18, and 26) finding
respondents GyroGlyder, Soibatian,
PhunkeeDuck, Jomo, Kebe, Supersun,
Twizzle, and Uwheels in default,
respondents Joy Hoverboard,
Chenduoxing, Shareconn, RMT, and
Cyboard in default, and respondents
HoverTech, Leray, and Spaceboard in
default, respectively. On January 17,
2017, the Commission issued notice of
its determination not to review the ALJ’s
ID (Order No. 27) terminating the
investigation as to Genius Technologies
for good cause. On February 15, 2017,
the Commission issued notice of its
determination not to review the ALJ’s ID
(Order No. 42) granting complainants’
unopposed motion to terminate the
investigation as to their Lanham Act,
common law, and state unfair and
deceptive trade practices allegations
under section 337(a)(1)(A).
On May 26, 2017, the ALJ issued his
final ID and recommended
determination (‘‘RD’’) on remedy and
bonding. The ID finds that Alibaba is
not an agent of the other respondents
and therefore is not within the
jurisdiction of section 337. It also finds
that none of the respondents’ accused
products infringe the ’278 patent, but
that all of the defaulting respondents’
accused products infringe the asserted
patent based on taking the allegations in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Aug 02, 2017
Jkt 241001
the complaint as true. The ID also finds
that the technical prong of the domestic
industry requirement was not satisfied
with respect to the ’278 patent. The
cover page of the ID/RD, however, states
that a violation of section 337 was
found, page 75 of the ID/RD states that
a violation was found as to the
defaulting respondents, and the
separately issued ‘‘Notice Regarding
Initial Determination on Violation of
Section 337 and Recommended
Determination on Remedy and Bond’’
(May 26, 2017) (‘‘Notice Regarding the
ID’’) states that a violation of section 337
was found. On June 5, 2017, the ALJ
issued an erratum clarifying that there
was no violation of section 337 because
complainants had not satisfied the
technical prong of the domestic industry
requirement. He also issued a corrected
ID/RD and Notice Regarding the ID on
June 5, 2017; however, the error on page
75 of the ID/RD was not corrected. The
Commission clarifies that the erratum
also applies to (1) page 75 of the ID/RD
and corrects that page to delete the
statement that a violation has been
found as to the defaulting respondents;
and (2) footnote 47 on the same page,
and corrects the footnote by striking
‘‘infringe the ’278 patent’’ and
substituting ‘‘violate section 337’’.
On June 12, 2017, OUII,
complainants, respondent Chic, and a
group of three respondents (Swagway,
Modell’s, and Newegg) filed separate
petitions for review of the final ID. On
June 20, 2017, OUII, complainants,
respondent Jetson, respondent Alibaba,
and a group of four respondents
(Swagway, Modell’s, Chic, and Newegg)
filed separate responses to the opposing
petitions.
Having examined the record of this
investigation, including the ID, the
parties’ petitions for review, and the
responses thereto, the Commission has
determined to review-in-part the final
ID. Specifically, the Commission has
determined to review (1) the ID’s
finding that the Commission has no
jurisdiction over Alibaba; and (2) the
ID’s analysis regarding infringement by
the defaulting respondents. The
Commission has determined not to
review the remainder of the final ID.
On review with respect to issue (1),
the Commission determines to take no
position on the ID’s finding that the
Commission has no jurisdiction over
Alibaba. On review with respect to issue
(2), the Commission vacates the ID’s
findings in the last paragraph on page
39 (and paragraph 5 on page 72, as well
as the first sentence on page 83) that
complainants have established that the
defaulting respondents infringe the ’278
patent. These respondents have been
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
found in default by virtue of their
failure to respond to the complaint and
notice of investigation. See Comm’n
Notice (September 7, 2016); Comm’n
Notice (October 11, 2016); Comm’n
Notice (December 13, 2016). Section
337(g)(1), 19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1), provides
the conditions and procedures
applicable for issuing a default remedy.
In light of the Commission’s
determination not to review the
remainder of the final ID, including but
not limited to the finding that the
technical prong of the domestic industry
requirement for the ’278 patent has not
been satisfied, the analysis under
Section 337(g)(1) is moot.
The Commission therefore affirms the
ID’s finding of no violation of section
337 and terminates the investigation.
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: July 28, 2017.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2017–16325 Filed 8–2–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 731–TA–703 (Fourth
Review)]
Furfuryl Alcohol From China;
Determination
On the basis of the record 1 developed
in the subject five-year review, the
United States International Trade
Commission (‘‘Commission’’)
determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of
1930 (‘‘the Act’’), that revocation of the
antidumping duty order on furfuryl
alcohol from China would be likely to
lead to continuation or recurrence of
material injury to an industry in the
United States within a reasonably
foreseeable time.
Background
The Commission, pursuant to section
751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)),
instituted this review on January 3, 2017
(82 FR 140) and determined on April 10,
2017, that it would conduct an
expedited review (82 FR 23063, May 19,
2017).
1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19
CFR 207.2(f)).
E:\FR\FM\03AUN1.SGM
03AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 148 (Thursday, August 3, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36153-36154]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16325]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-1000]
Certain Motorized Self-Balancing Vehicles; Commission
Determination To Review-in-Part an Initial Determination Finding No
Violation of Section 337; on Review, To Vacate One Portion of the
Initial Determination and Take No Position on One Issue; and Affirmance
of the Finding of No Violation and Termination of the Investigation
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'') of the presiding administrative law judge
(``ALJ'') finding no violation of section 337. On review, the
Commission has determined to vacate one portion of the ID and to take
no position with respect to one issue. The Commission has also
determined to affirm the ID's finding of no violation of section 337
and has terminated the 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 May 26, 2016, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Razor USA LLC
of Cerritos, California; and Inventist, Inc. and Shane Chen, both of
Camas, Washington. 81 FR 33548-49. The complaint alleged violations of
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, by
reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,738,278
(``the '278 patent''). The complaint further alleged violations of
section 337 based upon false advertising, misrepresentation, and unfair
competition, the threat or effect of which is to destroy or
substantially injure an industry in the United States or to prevent the
establishment of such an industry. The Commission's notice of
investigation named the following twenty-eight respondents: Contixo Co.
of Ontario, California and ZTO Store a.k.a. ZTO Trading, Inc. of
Monterey Park, California (collectively, ``Contixo''); Joy Hoverboard
a/k/a Huizhou Aoge Enterprise Co. Ltd (``Joy Hoverboard'') of Huizhou,
China; Shenzhen Chenduoxing Electronic Technology Ltd.
(``Chenduoxing''), Shareconn International, Inc. (``Shareconn''), and
Shenzhen R.M.T. Technology Co., Ltd. (``RMT''); all of Guangdong,
China; Cyboard LLC a/k/a Shark Empire Inc. (``Cyboard'') of Glendale,
California; GyroGlyder.com (``GyroGlyder'') of Stockton, California;
Soibatian Corporation d.b.a. IO Hawk and d.b.a. Smart Wheels
(``Soibatian'') of Glendale, California; PhunkeeDuck, Inc.
(``PhunkeeDuck'') of Floral Park, New York; Shenzhen Jomo Technology
Co., Ltd. (``Jomo'') of Shenzhen City, China; Shenzhen Kebe Technology
Co., Ltd. (``Kebe'') and Shenzhen Supersun Technology Co. Ltd., a.k.a.
Aottom (``Supersun''), both of Shenzhen, China; Twizzle Hoverboard
(``Twizzle'') of La Puente, California; Uwheels of Santa Ana,
California; InMotion Entertainment Group LLC (``InMotion'') of
Jacksonville, Florida; HoverTech of Hebron, Kentucky; Leray Group a/k/a
ShanDao Trading Co., Ltd. (``Leray'') of Beijing, China; Spaceboard USA
(``Spaceboard'') of Norcross, Georgia; Genius Technologies a.k.a. Prime
Capital (``Genius Technologies'') of Hastings, Minnesota; Hangzhou Chic
Intelligent Co., Ltd. (``Chic'') of Hangzhou, China; Swagway, LLC
(``Swagway'') of South Bend, Indiana; Modell's Sporting Goods, Inc.
(``Modell's'') of New York City, New York; Powerboard a.k.a. Optimum
Trading Co. (``Powerboard'') of Hebron, Kentucky; United Integral, Inc.
dba Skque Products (``Skque'') of Irwindale, California; Alibaba Group
Holding Ltd. of Causeway Bay, Hong Kong and Alibaba.com Ltd. of
Hangzhou, China (collectively, ``Alibaba''); Jetson Electric
[[Page 36154]]
Bikes LLC (``Jetson'') of New York City, New York; and Newegg, Inc.
(``Newegg'') of City of Industry, California. The Office of Unfair
Import Investigations (``OUII'') is also a party to the investigation.
Id. Eight respondents remain in the investigation, i.e., Chic, Swagway,
Modell's, Powerboard, Skque, Alibaba, Jetson, and Newegg (collectively,
``respondents''). Every other respondent was terminated from the
investigation based on a consent order stipulation and proposed consent
order or good cause, or was found in default.
On August 10 and November 17, 2016, respectively, the Commission
issued notice of its determinations not to review the ALJ's IDs (Order
Nos. 11 and 22) terminating the investigation as to Contixo based on a
consent order stipulation and proposed consent order, and as to
InMotion based on a consent order stipulation, proposed consent order,
and settlement agreement. On October 19 and 27, 2016, respectively, the
Commission issued notice of its determinations not to review the ALJ's
IDs (Order Nos. 19 and 20) terminating the investigation as to claim 9
of the '278 patent and claim 4 of the patent. On September 7, October
11, and December 13, 2016, respectively, the Commission issued notice
of its determinations not to review the ALJ's IDs (Order Nos. 14, 18,
and 26) finding respondents GyroGlyder, Soibatian, PhunkeeDuck, Jomo,
Kebe, Supersun, Twizzle, and Uwheels in default, respondents Joy
Hoverboard, Chenduoxing, Shareconn, RMT, and Cyboard in default, and
respondents HoverTech, Leray, and Spaceboard in default, respectively.
On January 17, 2017, the Commission issued notice of its determination
not to review the ALJ's ID (Order No. 27) terminating the investigation
as to Genius Technologies for good cause. On February 15, 2017, the
Commission issued notice of its determination not to review the ALJ's
ID (Order No. 42) granting complainants' unopposed motion to terminate
the investigation as to their Lanham Act, common law, and state unfair
and deceptive trade practices allegations under section 337(a)(1)(A).
On May 26, 2017, the ALJ issued his final ID and recommended
determination (``RD'') on remedy and bonding. The ID finds that Alibaba
is not an agent of the other respondents and therefore is not within
the jurisdiction of section 337. It also finds that none of the
respondents' accused products infringe the '278 patent, but that all of
the defaulting respondents' accused products infringe the asserted
patent based on taking the allegations in the complaint as true. The ID
also finds that the technical prong of the domestic industry
requirement was not satisfied with respect to the '278 patent. The
cover page of the ID/RD, however, states that a violation of section
337 was found, page 75 of the ID/RD states that a violation was found
as to the defaulting respondents, and the separately issued ``Notice
Regarding Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337 and
Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond'' (May 26, 2017) (``Notice
Regarding the ID'') states that a violation of section 337 was found.
On June 5, 2017, the ALJ issued an erratum clarifying that there was no
violation of section 337 because complainants had not satisfied the
technical prong of the domestic industry requirement. He also issued a
corrected ID/RD and Notice Regarding the ID on June 5, 2017; however,
the error on page 75 of the ID/RD was not corrected. The Commission
clarifies that the erratum also applies to (1) page 75 of the ID/RD and
corrects that page to delete the statement that a violation has been
found as to the defaulting respondents; and (2) footnote 47 on the same
page, and corrects the footnote by striking ``infringe the '278
patent'' and substituting ``violate section 337''.
On June 12, 2017, OUII, complainants, respondent Chic, and a group
of three respondents (Swagway, Modell's, and Newegg) filed separate
petitions for review of the final ID. On June 20, 2017, OUII,
complainants, respondent Jetson, respondent Alibaba, and a group of
four respondents (Swagway, Modell's, Chic, and Newegg) filed separate
responses to the opposing petitions.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ID,
the parties' petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the
Commission has determined to review-in-part the final ID. Specifically,
the Commission has determined to review (1) the ID's finding that the
Commission has no jurisdiction over Alibaba; and (2) the ID's analysis
regarding infringement by the defaulting respondents. The Commission
has determined not to review the remainder of the final ID.
On review with respect to issue (1), the Commission determines to
take no position on the ID's finding that the Commission has no
jurisdiction over Alibaba. On review with respect to issue (2), the
Commission vacates the ID's findings in the last paragraph on page 39
(and paragraph 5 on page 72, as well as the first sentence on page 83)
that complainants have established that the defaulting respondents
infringe the '278 patent. These respondents have been found in default
by virtue of their failure to respond to the complaint and notice of
investigation. See Comm'n Notice (September 7, 2016); Comm'n Notice
(October 11, 2016); Comm'n Notice (December 13, 2016). Section
337(g)(1), 19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1), provides the conditions and procedures
applicable for issuing a default remedy. In light of the Commission's
determination not to review the remainder of the final ID, including
but not limited to the finding that the technical prong of the domestic
industry requirement for the '278 patent has not been satisfied, the
analysis under Section 337(g)(1) is moot.
The Commission therefore affirms the ID's finding of no violation
of section 337 and terminates the investigation.
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: July 28, 2017.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2017-16325 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
