Certain Iron Construction Castings From Brazil, Canada, and China, 7967-7968 [05-2925]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 16, 2005 / Notices viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation on November 14, 2003, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Cirrus Logic, Inc. of Austin, TX (‘‘Cirrus’’). 68 FR 64641 (Nov. 14, 2003). The complaint, as supplemented, alleged violations of section 337 in the importation into the United States, sale for importation, and sale within the United States after importation of certain audio digital-to-analog converters and products containing same by reason of infringement of claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 6,492,928 (‘‘the ’928 patent’’). The notice of investigation named Wolfson Microelectronics, PLC of Edinburgh, United Kingdom; and Wolfson Microelectronics, Inc. of San Diego, CA (collectively ‘‘Wolfson’’) as respondents. On December 29, 2003, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 5) granting complainant’s motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to add allegations of infringement of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, and 15 of the ’928 patent, and of claims 9, 12, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 6,011,501 (‘‘the ’501 patent’’). 69 FR 4177 (Jan. 28, 2004). On July 1, 2004, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 16) granting complainant’s motion to terminate the investigation as to claims 1 and 2 of the ’928 patent. On July 27, 2004, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 24) granting complainant’s motion to terminate the investigation in part as to claim 11 of the ’928 patent. Order Nos. 5, 16, and 24 were not reviewed by the Commission. The ALJ held an evidentiary hearing in the investigation from August 3, 2004, to August 11, 2004, and on November 15, 2004, he issued his final ID finding a violation of section 337 based on his findings that the asserted claims of the ’501 patent are infringed, that they are not invalid in view of any prior art, and that claims 9 and 12 of the ’501 patent are not invalid because of failure to provide an enabling written description of the claimed invention. The ALJ found the ’928 patent to be unenforceable because the inventors intentionally withheld highly material prior art from the examiner during the prosecution of the ’928 patent application at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (‘‘USPTO’’). As an independent ground for unenforceability, the ALJ found that the ’928 patent is unenforceable because one person was mistakenly listed on the patent as an inventor. The ALJ found that the accused devices infringe the asserted claims of the ’928 patent, if VerDate jul<14>2003 12:44 Feb 15, 2005 Jkt 205001 enforceable, that the asserted claims of the ’928 patent are not invalid in view of any prior art, or because of a failure to provide an enabling written description of the claimed invention, or for failure to disclose the best mode. On November 23, 2004, the USPTO issued a certificate correcting the inventorship of the ’928 patent thereby curing one ground for unenforceability of that patent. See Viskase Corp. v. American National Can Co., 261 F.3d 1316, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (‘‘Absent fraud or deceptive intent, the correction of inventorship does not affect the validity or enforceability of the patent for the period before the correction.’’). On November 30, 2004, Cirrus, Wolfson and the Commission’s investigative attorney filed petitions for review of the final ID, and on December 7, 2004, all parties filed responses. On December 30, 2004, the Commission determined to review and reverse the ID’s finding that the ’928 patent is unenforceable due to incorrect inventorship in view of the recently issued certificate of correction by the USPTO. 70 FR 1275 (Jan. 6, 2005). It further determined not to review the remainder of the ID, thereby finding a violation of section 337. Id. The Commission invited the parties to file written submissions on remedy, the public interest and bonding, and provided a schedule for filing such submissions. Id. Having reviewed the record in this investigation, including the parties’ written submissions and responses thereto, the Commission determined that the appropriate form of relief is a limited exclusion order prohibiting the importation of Wolfson’s accused audio digital-to-analog converters that infringe claims 9, 12 and 19 of the ’501 patent. The limited exclusion order applies to any of the affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, licensees, contractors, or other related business entities, or their successors or assigns, of Wolfson. The Commission further determined that the statutory public interest factors enumerated in section 337(d)(1), 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1), do not preclude issuance of the limited exclusion order. Finally, the Commission determined that the bond under the limited exclusion order during the Presidential review period shall be in the amount of 5 percent of the entered value of the imported articles. The Commission’s order and opinion in support thereof were delivered to the President on the day of their issuance. The authority for the Commission’s determinations is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in section 210.50 of the Commission’s PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 7967 Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.50). Issued: February 11, 2005. By order of the Commission. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 05–2972 Filed 2–15–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigations Nos. 701–TA–249 and 731– TA–262, 263, and 265 (Second Review)] Certain Iron Construction Castings From Brazil, Canada, and China International Trade Commission. ACTION: Scheduling of expedited fiveyear reviews concerning the countervailing and antidumping duty orders on certain iron construction castings from Brazil, Canada, and China. AGENCY: SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of expedited reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty order on heavy iron construction castings from Brazil, the antidumping duty order on heavy iron construction castings from Canada, and/ or the revocation of the antidumping duty orders on iron construction castings (heavy and light) from Brazil and China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207). EFFECTIVE DATE: January 11, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harry Lenchitz (202–205–2737 or harry.lenchitz@usitc.gov), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain information on this matter 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 (https:// E:\FR\FM\16FEN1.SGM 16FEN1 7968 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 16, 2005 / Notices www.usitc.gov). The public record for this review may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background. On January 4, 2005, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution (69 FR 58952, October 1, 2004) of the subject five-year reviews was adequate and that the respondent interested parties responses were inadequate. The Commission did not find any other circumstances that would warrant conducting full reviews.1 Accordingly, the Commission determined that it would conduct expedited reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act.2 Staff report. A staff report containing information concerning the subject matter of the reviews will be placed in the nonpublic record on May 3, 2005, and made available to persons on the Administrative Protective Order service list for these reviews. A public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.62(d)(4) of the Commission’s rules. Written submissions. As provided in section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s rules, interested parties that are parties to the reviews and that have provided individually adequate responses to the notice of institution,3 and any party other than an interested party to the reviews may file written comments with the Secretary on what determinations the Commission should reach in the reviews. Comments are due on or before May 10, 2005, and may not contain new factual information. Any person that is neither a party to the five-year reviews nor an interested party may submit a brief written statement (which shall not contain any new factual information) pertinent to the reviews by May 10, 2005. If comments contain business proprietary information (BPI), they must conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s rules. The Commission’s rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means, except to the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 1 A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner’s statements will be available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission’s Web site. 2 Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun and Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson dissenting. 3 The Commission has found the responses submitted by Deeter Foundry, Inc.; East Jordan Iron Works, Inc.; LeBaron Foundry, Inc.; Municipal Castings, Inc.; Neenah Foundry Co.; Tyler Pipe Co.; and U.S. Foundry & Mfg. Corp. to be individually adequate. Comments from other interested parties will not be accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)). VerDate jul<14>2003 12:44 Feb 15, 2005 Jkt 205001 providing its advice on these articles, the USTR asked that the Commission assume that the benefits of the GSP would not apply to imports that would be excluded from receiving such benefits by virtue of the competitive need limits specified in section 503(c)(2)(A) of the 1974 Act. As requested by the USTR, pursuant to section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, the Commission will provide advice as to the probable economic effect on U.S. industries producing like or directly competitive articles and on consumers of the removal of Russia from eligibility for duty-free treatment under the GSP for HTS subheading Authority: These reviews are being 3904.61.00. conducted under authority of title VII of the As requested under section 332(g) of Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published the Tariff Act of 1930 and in accordance pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. with section 503(d)(1)(A) of the 1974 Act, the Commission will provide Issued: February 9, 2005. advice on whether any industry in the By order of the Commission. United States is likely to be adversely Marilyn R. Abbott, affected by a waiver of the competitive Secretary to the Commission. need limits specified in section [FR Doc. 05–2925 Filed 2–15–05; 8:45 am] 503(c)(2)(A) of the 1974 Act for the BILLING CODE 7020–02–P Philippines for HTS subheading 3823.19.20; for Argentina for HTS subheadings 4107.19.50 and 4107.92.80; INTERNATIONAL TRADE and for Turkey for HTS subheading COMMISSION 6802.91.25. With respect to the [Investigation No. 332–466] competitive need limit in section 503(c)(2)(A)(i)(I) of the 1974 Act, the Advice Concerning Possible Commission, as requested, will use the Modifications to the U.S. Generalized dollar value limit of $115,000,000. System of Preferences, 2004 Review As requested by the USTR, the Commission will seek to provide its AGENCY: International Trade advice not later than May 9, 2005. Commission. DATES: Effective Date: February 9, 2005. ACTION: Institution of investigation and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: scheduling of hearing. Project Leader, Cynthia B. Foreso SUMMARY: Following receipt on February ((202) 205–3348 or 7, 2005 of a request from the United cynthia.foreso@usitc.gov). States Trade Representative (USTR) Deputy Project Leader, Eric Land under section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of ((202) 205–3349 or eric.land@usitc.gov). 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1332 (g)), the The above persons are in the Commission instituted investigation No. Commission’s Office of Industries. For 332–466, Advice Concerning Possible information on legal aspects of the Modifications to the U.S. Generalized investigation, contact William Gearhart System of Preferences, 2004 Review. of the Commission’s Office of the Background: As requested by the General Counsel at (202) 205–3091 or USTR, in accordance with sections william.gearhart@usitc.gov. 503(a)(1)(A), 503(e), and 131(a) of the Public Hearing: A public hearing in Trade Act of 1974 (1974 Act), and under connection with this investigation is section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. on the Commission will provide advice as March 23, 2005, at the United States to the probable economic effect on U.S. International Trade Commission industries producing like or directly Building, 500 E Street, SW., competitive articles and on consumers Washington, DC. All persons have the of the elimination of U.S. import duties right to appear by counsel or in person, for all beneficiary developing countries to present information, and to be heard. under the GSP for the following HTS Persons wishing to appear at the public subheadings: 0804.10.20, 0804.10.40, hearing should file a letter with the 0804.10.60, 0804.10.80, 2008.99.25, Secretary, United States International 5702.51.20, 5702.91.30, 5702.92.0010, Trade Commission, 500 E St., SW., 5702.99.1010, 5703.10.0020, 5703.20.10, Washington, DC 20436, not later than 5703.30.0020, and 7320.10.60. In the close of business (5:15 p.m.) on the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service. Determination. The Commission has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)(B). PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16FEN1.SGM 16FEN1

Agencies

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 16, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7967-7968]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2925]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigations Nos. 701-TA-249 and 731-TA-262, 263, and 265 (Second 
Review)]


Certain Iron Construction Castings From Brazil, Canada, and China

AGENCY: International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Scheduling of expedited five-year reviews concerning the 
countervailing and antidumping duty orders on certain iron construction 
castings from Brazil, Canada, and China.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of 
expedited reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of 
1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine whether revocation 
of the countervailing duty order on heavy iron construction castings 
from Brazil, the antidumping duty order on heavy iron construction 
castings from Canada, and/or the revocation of the antidumping duty 
orders on iron construction castings (heavy and light) from Brazil and 
China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material 
injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. For further information 
concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general 
application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 
part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 
subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 11, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harry Lenchitz (202-205-2737 or 
harry.lenchitz@usitc.gov), Office of Investigations, U.S. International 
Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-
impaired persons can obtain information on this matter 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 (https://

[[Page 7968]]

www.usitc.gov). The public record for this review may be viewed on the 
Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Background. On January 4, 2005, the Commission determined that the 
domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution 
(69 FR 58952, October 1, 2004) of the subject five-year reviews was 
adequate and that the respondent interested parties responses were 
inadequate. The Commission did not find any other circumstances that 
would warrant conducting full reviews.\1\ Accordingly, the Commission 
determined that it would conduct expedited reviews pursuant to section 
751(c)(3) of the Act.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A record of the Commissioners' votes, the Commission's 
statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner's statements 
will be available from the Office of the Secretary and at the 
Commission's Web site.
    \2\ Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun and Commissioner Daniel R. 
Pearson dissenting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Staff report. A staff report containing information concerning the 
subject matter of the reviews will be placed in the nonpublic record on 
May 3, 2005, and made available to persons on the Administrative 
Protective Order service list for these reviews. A public version will 
be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.62(d)(4) of the 
Commission's rules.
    Written submissions. As provided in section 207.62(d) of the 
Commission's rules, interested parties that are parties to the reviews 
and that have provided individually adequate responses to the notice of 
institution,\3\ and any party other than an interested party to the 
reviews may file written comments with the Secretary on what 
determinations the Commission should reach in the reviews. Comments are 
due on or before May 10, 2005, and may not contain new factual 
information. Any person that is neither a party to the five-year 
reviews nor an interested party may submit a brief written statement 
(which shall not contain any new factual information) pertinent to the 
reviews by May 10, 2005. If comments contain business proprietary 
information (BPI), they must conform with the requirements of sections 
201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's 
rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by 
facsimile or electronic means, except to the extent permitted by 
section 201.8 of the Commission's rules, as amended, 67 FR 68036 
(November 8, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission has found the responses submitted by Deeter 
Foundry, Inc.; East Jordan Iron Works, Inc.; LeBaron Foundry, Inc.; 
Municipal Castings, Inc.; Neenah Foundry Co.; Tyler Pipe Co.; and 
U.S. Foundry & Mfg. Corp. to be individually adequate. Comments from 
other interested parties will not be accepted (see 19 CFR 
207.62(d)(2)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each 
document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other 
parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or BPI 
service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The 
Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate 
of service.
    Determination. The Commission has determined to exercise its 
authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days pursuant to 19 
U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)(B).

    Authority: These reviews are being conducted under authority of 
title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 
pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.

    Issued: February 9, 2005.

    By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-2925 Filed 2-15-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P

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