Certain Gun Barrels Used in Firearms Training Systems; Notice of Commission Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order and a Cease and Desist Order Against a Respondent Found in Default, 6909-6910 [05-2459]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Notices
[FR Doc. 05–2523 Filed 2–8–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–MR–C
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Inv. No. 337–TA–505]
Certain Gun Barrels Used in Firearms
Training Systems; Notice of
Commission Issuance of a Limited
Exclusion Order and a Cease and
Desist Order Against a Respondent
Found in Default
International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has issued a limited
exclusion order and a cease and desist
order against a respondent found in
default in the above-captioned
investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael K. Haldenstein, Esq., Office of
the General Counsel, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–3041. 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
persons are advised that information on
this matter can be obtained by
contacting the Commission’s TDD
terminal on (202) 205–1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
patent-based section 337 investigation
was instituted by the Commission based
on a complaint filed by Beamhit, LLC,
and Safeshot, LLC, both of Columbia,
Maryland, and Safeshot, Inc., of New
York, New York. 69 FR 12346 (March
16, 2004). The complainants alleged
violations of section 337 in the
importation into the United States, the
sale for importation, and the sale within
the United States after importation of
certain gun barrels used in firearms
training systems by reason of
infringement of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 15,
21, 22, and 26 of U.S. Patent No.
5,829,180 (‘‘180 patent’’) and claims 1–
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:49 Feb 08, 2005
Jkt 205001
3, 7, 9, 14–18, 20, 24, 27, 32, 33, 37–40,
44, 45, 49–51, and 54 of U.S. Patent No.
6,322,365 (‘‘the ‘365 patent’’). The
complaint named Widec S.A.
´
Decolletage (‘‘Widec’’), of Moutier,
Switzerland, AMI Corp. SA (‘‘AMI’’), of
Moutier, Switzerland, Crown
AirMunition Holding, of Hilversum,
The Netherlands, AirMunition
International Corp. of Hilversum, The
Netherlands, AirMunition Industries
S.A., of Belprahon-Moutier,
Switzerland, and AirMunition North
America, Inc., of Norcross, Georgia as
respondents.
On April 27, 2004, complainants filed
a motion, pursuant to Commission Rule
210.16, for an order to show cause and
entry of a default judgement against
Crown AirMunition Holding,
AirMunition International Corp., AMI
Corp. SA, and AirMunition North
America Inc. (collectively ‘‘the
AirMunition respondents’’). The
Commission investigative attorney
(‘‘IA’’) supported the motion. None of
the respondents responded to the
motion. On May 12, 2004, the
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) issued
Order No. 6, requiring the AirMunition
respondents to show cause why they
should not be held in default, having
not responded to either the complaint or
the notice of investigation. The
respondents did not respond to the
show cause order. On August 16, 2004,
complainants filed a motion for an order
finding the AirMunition respondents in
default due to the respondents’ failure
to respond to the ALJ’s show cause
order.
On September 21, 2004, the ALJ
issued an ID finding the AirMunition
respondents in default. Pursuant to
Commission Rule 210.16(b)(3), the ALJ
also found that the AirMunition
respondents had waived their right to
appear, be served with documents or
contest the allegations in the complaint.
No petitions for review of this ID were
filed. On October 12, 2004, the ALJ’s ID
became the Commission’s final
determination after the Commission
issued a notice indicating that it would
not review the ID. On October 12, 2004,
pursuant to Commission Rule of
Practice and Procedure 210.16(c)(1), 19
CFR 210.16(c)(1), complainants filed a
declaration seeking immediate entry of
relief against the AirMunition
respondents.
The complainants and the nondefaulting respondents, Widec and AMI,
filed a joint motion to terminate the
investigation as to Widec and AMI on
September 2, 2004. The joint motion
was based on a proposed consent order,
filed pursuant to a settlement agreement
and a limited license. The IA filed a
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
6909
response in support of the motion on
September 13, 2004. The ALJ issued an
initial determination (‘‘ID’’) on
September 21, 2004, terminating the
investigation as to Widec and AMI. No
petitions for review of this ID were filed.
On October 12, 2004, the Commission
issued a notice indicating that it would
not review the ID, thereby adopting the
ALJ’s ID as the Commission’s final
determination.
On November 10, 2004, the
Commission requested that the parties
brief the isssues of remedy, the public
interest, and bonding with respect to the
defaulting AirMunition respondents. On
November 22, 2004, complainants and
the IA submitted their main briefs, and
on December 1, 2004, the complainants
and the IA submitted reply briefs.
Complainants and the IA both
maintained that the appropriate remedy
is a limited exclusion order and a cease
and desist order.
The Commission found that each of
the statutory requirements of section
337(g)(1)(A)–(E), 19 U.S.C.
1337(g)(1)(A)–(E), has been met with
respect to the defaulting AirMunition
respondents. Accordingly, pursuant to
section 337(g)(1), 19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1),
and Commission rule 210.16(c) 19 CFR
210.16(c), the Commission presumed
the facts alleged in the amended
complaint to be true.
The Commission determined that the
appropriate form of relief in this
investigation is a limited exclusion
order prohibiting the unlicensed entry
of certain gun barrels used in firearms
training systems by reason of
infringement of one or more of the
following claims: claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 15,
21, 22, or 26 of the ‘180 patent or claims
1–3, 7, 9, 14–18, 20, 24, 27, 32, 33, 37–
40, 44, 45, 49–51, or 54 of the ‘365
patent. The order covers certain gun
barrels used in firearms training systems
that are manufactured abroad by or on
behalf of, or imported by or on behalf
of the AirMunition respondents or any
of their affiliated companies, parents,
subsidiaries, or other related business
entities, or their successors or assigns.
The Commission also determined to
issue a cease and desist order
prohibiting AirMunition North America
Inc. from importing, selling, marketing,
advertising, distributing, offering for
sale, transferring (except for
exportation), and soliciting U.S. agents
or distributors for certain gun barrels
covered by the above-mentioned claims
of the ‘180 patent and ‘365 patent. The
Commission further determined that the
public interest factors enumerated in
section 337(g)(1), 19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1),
do not preclude issuance of the limited
exclusion order and cease and desist
E:\FR\FM\09FEN1.SGM
09FEN1
6910
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 9, 2005 / Notices
order. Finally, the Commission
determined that the bond under the
limited exclusion order during the
Presidential review period shall be in
the amount of 100 percent of the entered
value of the imported articles. [The
Commission’s orders were delivered to
the President on the day of their
issuance.]
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 210.16(c) of the Commission’s
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.16(c)).
Issued: February 3, 2005.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05–2459 Filed 2–8–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Inv. No. 337–TA–511]
Certain Pet Food Treats; Notice of
Decision Not to Review an Initial
Determination Granting Motion of Alan
Lee Distributors, Inc. for Summary
Determination of Non-Infringement;
Termination of the Investigation as to
Alan Lee Distributors, Inc.
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined not to
review an initial determination (ID)
issued by the presiding administrative
law judge (ALJ) granting the motion of
Alan Lee Distributors, Inc. (ADI) for
summary determination of noninfringement in the above-captioned
investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Andrea Casson, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202–
205–3105. Copies of all nonconfidential
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
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:49 Feb 08, 2005
Jkt 205001
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 June 8, 2004, based on a complaint
filed by Thomas J. Baumgartner and
Hillbilly Smokehouse, Inc., both of
Rogers, Arkansas. 69 FR 32044. The
complaint alleges violations of section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 337 U.S.C.
§ 1337, in the importation into the
United States, sale for importation, or
sale within the United States after
importation of certain pet food treats
that infringe U.S. Design Patent No.
383,886 (‘‘the 886‘patent’’). The notice
of investigation lists six companies as
respondents, including ADI.
On December 13, 2005, ADI filed a
motion for partial summary
determination of non-infringement.
Complainants filed a response in
opposition to the motion. The
Commission investigative attorney filed
a response in support of the motion. On
January 10, 2005, the ALJ issued an ID
(Order No. 13) granting ADI’s motion for
summary determination. No petitions
for review of the ID were filed.
This action is taken under the
authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act
of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and 210.42
(h)(3) of the Commission Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR
§ 210.42(h)(3).
Issued: February 3, 2005.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05–2461 Filed 2–8–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
and Explosives
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comments Requested:
60-Day notice of information
collection under review: Search for
artifacts and memorabilia.
ACTION:
The Department of Justice
(Department), Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
(ATF), has submitted the following
information collection request to the
Office of Management and Budget for
review and approval in accordance with
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The proposed information collection is
published to obtain comments from the
public and affected agencies. Comments
are encouraged and will be accepted for
‘‘sixty days’’ until April 11, 2005. This
process is conducted in accordance with
5 CFR 1320.10.
If you have comments especially on
the estimated public burden or
associated response time, suggestions,
or need a copy of the proposed
information collection instrument with
instructions or additional information,
please contact Barbara Osteika, New
Building Projects Office, Suite 750,
Techworld, 650 Massachusetts Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20226.
Written comments and suggestions
from the public and affected agencies
concerning the proposed collection of
information are encouraged. Your
comments should address one or more
of the following four points:
—Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
—Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies
estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
—Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
—Minimize the burden of the collection
of information on those who are to
respond, including through the use of
appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms
of information technology, e.g.,
permitting electronic submission of
responses.
Overview of this information
collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection:
Extension of a currently approved
collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection:
Search For Artifacts and Memorabilia.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and
the applicable component of the
Department of Justice sponsoring the
collection: Form Number: None. Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives.
(4) Affected public who will be asked
or required to respond, as well as a brief
abstract: Primary: Individuals or
households. Other: None. The search
document is used to aid the Historic
Archives Program with discovering and
obtaining artifacts and memorabilia
pertaining to the history, mission, and
E:\FR\FM\09FEN1.SGM
09FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 9, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6909-6910]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2459]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Inv. No. 337-TA-505]
Certain Gun Barrels Used in Firearms Training Systems; Notice of
Commission Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order and a Cease and Desist
Order Against a Respondent Found in Default
AGENCY: International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has issued a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist
order against a respondent found in default in the above-captioned
investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael K. Haldenstein, Esq., Office
of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3041. 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 persons are advised that information
on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD
terminal on (202) 205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This patent-based section 337 investigation
was instituted by the Commission based on a complaint filed by Beamhit,
LLC, and Safeshot, LLC, both of Columbia, Maryland, and Safeshot, Inc.,
of New York, New York. 69 FR 12346 (March 16, 2004). The complainants
alleged violations of section 337 in the importation into the United
States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States
after importation of certain gun barrels used in firearms training
systems by reason of infringement of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 15, 21, 22,
and 26 of U.S. Patent No. 5,829,180 (``180 patent'') and claims 1-3, 7,
9, 14-18, 20, 24, 27, 32, 33, 37-40, 44, 45, 49-51, and 54 of U.S.
Patent No. 6,322,365 (``the `365 patent''). The complaint named Widec
S.A. D[eacute]colletage (``Widec''), of Moutier, Switzerland, AMI Corp.
SA (``AMI''), of Moutier, Switzerland, Crown AirMunition Holding, of
Hilversum, The Netherlands, AirMunition International Corp. of
Hilversum, The Netherlands, AirMunition Industries S.A., of Belprahon-
Moutier, Switzerland, and AirMunition North America, Inc., of Norcross,
Georgia as respondents.
On April 27, 2004, complainants filed a motion, pursuant to
Commission Rule 210.16, for an order to show cause and entry of a
default judgement against Crown AirMunition Holding, AirMunition
International Corp., AMI Corp. SA, and AirMunition North America Inc.
(collectively ``the AirMunition respondents''). The Commission
investigative attorney (``IA'') supported the motion. None of the
respondents responded to the motion. On May 12, 2004, the
administrative law judge (``ALJ'') issued Order No. 6, requiring the
AirMunition respondents to show cause why they should not be held in
default, having not responded to either the complaint or the notice of
investigation. The respondents did not respond to the show cause order.
On August 16, 2004, complainants filed a motion for an order finding
the AirMunition respondents in default due to the respondents' failure
to respond to the ALJ's show cause order.
On September 21, 2004, the ALJ issued an ID finding the AirMunition
respondents in default. Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.16(b)(3), the
ALJ also found that the AirMunition respondents had waived their right
to appear, be served with documents or contest the allegations in the
complaint. No petitions for review of this ID were filed. On October
12, 2004, the ALJ's ID became the Commission's final determination
after the Commission issued a notice indicating that it would not
review the ID. On October 12, 2004, pursuant to Commission Rule of
Practice and Procedure 210.16(c)(1), 19 CFR 210.16(c)(1), complainants
filed a declaration seeking immediate entry of relief against the
AirMunition respondents.
The complainants and the non-defaulting respondents, Widec and AMI,
filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation as to Widec and AMI
on September 2, 2004. The joint motion was based on a proposed consent
order, filed pursuant to a settlement agreement and a limited license.
The IA filed a response in support of the motion on September 13, 2004.
The ALJ issued an initial determination (``ID'') on September 21, 2004,
terminating the investigation as to Widec and AMI. No petitions for
review of this ID were filed. On October 12, 2004, the Commission
issued a notice indicating that it would not review the ID, thereby
adopting the ALJ's ID as the Commission's final determination.
On November 10, 2004, the Commission requested that the parties
brief the isssues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding with
respect to the defaulting AirMunition respondents. On November 22,
2004, complainants and the IA submitted their main briefs, and on
December 1, 2004, the complainants and the IA submitted reply briefs.
Complainants and the IA both maintained that the appropriate remedy is
a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order.
The Commission found that each of the statutory requirements of
section 337(g)(1)(A)-(E), 19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)(A)-(E), has been met
with respect to the defaulting AirMunition respondents. Accordingly,
pursuant to section 337(g)(1), 19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1), and Commission
rule 210.16(c) 19 CFR 210.16(c), the Commission presumed the facts
alleged in the amended complaint to be true.
The Commission determined that the appropriate form of relief in
this investigation is a limited exclusion order prohibiting the
unlicensed entry of certain gun barrels used in firearms training
systems by reason of infringement of one or more of the following
claims: claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 15, 21, 22, or 26 of the `180 patent or
claims 1-3, 7, 9, 14-18, 20, 24, 27, 32, 33, 37-40, 44, 45, 49-51, or
54 of the `365 patent. The order covers certain gun barrels used in
firearms training systems that are manufactured abroad by or on behalf
of, or imported by or on behalf of the AirMunition respondents or any
of their affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, or other related
business entities, or their successors or assigns. The Commission also
determined to issue a cease and desist order prohibiting AirMunition
North America Inc. from importing, selling, marketing, advertising,
distributing, offering for sale, transferring (except for exportation),
and soliciting U.S. agents or distributors for certain gun barrels
covered by the above-mentioned claims of the `180 patent and `365
patent. The Commission further determined that the public interest
factors enumerated in section 337(g)(1), 19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1), do not
preclude issuance of the limited exclusion order and cease and desist
[[Page 6910]]
order. Finally, the Commission determined that the bond under the
limited exclusion order during the Presidential review period shall be
in the amount of 100 percent of the entered value of the imported
articles. [The Commission's orders were delivered to the President on
the day of their issuance.]
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 210.16(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 210.16(c)).
Issued: February 3, 2005.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-2459 Filed 2-8-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
