In the Matter of Certain Plastic Food Containers; Notice of Final Determination of Violation of Section 337 and Issuance of General Exclusion Order; Termination of the Investigation, 30481-30482 [05-10573]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 101 / Thursday, May 26, 2005 / Notices
Office of the Secretary, U.S.
International Trade Commission, 500 E
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 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.
This
patent-based section 337 investigation
was instituted by the Commission based
on a complaint filed by FANUC
Robotics America, Inc. (‘‘FANUC’’) of
Rochester Hills, Michigan. 70 FR 2881
(January 18, 2005). The complaint
alleged violations of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation
into the United States, the sale for
importation, and the sale within the
United States after importation of
certain electric robots and component
parts thereof by reason of infringement
of claims 1–24 of U.S. Patent No.
6,477,913. The complaint and notice of
investigation named Behr Systems, Inc.
¨
of Auburn Hills, Michigan, Durr AG of
Stuttgart, Germany, Motoman, Inc. of
West Carrollton, Ohio, and Yaskawa
Electric Corporation of Kitakyushu,
Fukuoka, Japan as respondents.
On April 29, 2005, FANUC moved to
amend the complaint and notice of
¨
investigation to add respondents Durr
Systems, Inc. of Plymouth Michigan,
¨
Durr Systems GmbH of Bietigheim¨
Bissingen, Germany, and Durr Special
Material Handling GmbH of GrenzachWyhlen, Germany. On May 2, 2005, the
ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 7) granting
FANUC’s motion. No petitions to review
the ID were filed. The Commission has
determined not to review this ID.
This action is taken under the
authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act
of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and
Commission Rule 210.42, 19 CFR
210.42.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Issued: May 20, 2005.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05–10492 Filed 5–25–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
VerDate jul<14>2003
19:11 May 25, 2005
Jkt 205001
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Inv. No. 337–TA–514]
In the Matter of Certain Plastic Food
Containers; Notice of Final
Determination of Violation of Section
337 and Issuance of General Exclusion
Order; Termination of the Investigation
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to find a
violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended, in the abovecaptioned investigation. Notice is also
given that the Commission has issued a
general exclusion order in the abovecaptioned investigation and has
terminated the investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Diehl, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202–
205–3095. Copies of 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 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
the matter can be obtained by contacting
the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–
205–1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By a
notice published on June 22, 2004, the
Commission instituted an investigation
into alleged violations of section 337 in
the importation and sale of certain
plastic food containers by reason of
infringement of certain claims of U.S.
Patent No. 6,056,138 (the ‘‘ ‘138
patent’’); of U.S. Patent No. 6,196,404
(the ‘‘ ‘404 patent’’); and of U.S. Design
Patent No. D 415,420 (the ‘‘ ‘420
patent’’). 69 FR 34691 (June 22, 2004).
Plastic food containers such as those
claimed by the patents in issue are used
for packaging foods from restaurants,
food processors, and educational and
government institutions with food
service programs.
On August 19, 2004, complainant
Newspring Industrial Corp.
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
30481
(‘‘Newspring’’) moved for an order
directing that each of the two
respondents, Jiangsu Sainty
Corporation, Ltd. (‘‘Jiangsu’’) and
Taizhou Huasen Household Necessities,
Co., Ltd. (‘‘Taizhou’’), show cause as to
why each should not be found in default
for failure to respond to the complaint
and notice of investigation. Newspring
also requested an order finding the
respondents in default if they failed to
show cause. On August 27, 2004, the
Investigative Attorney (‘‘IA’’) filed a
response in support of the motion for an
order to show cause, but opposed any
finding that respondents are in default
as premature. On August 30, 2004, the
ALJ issued Order No. 5, directing
respondents to show cause no later than
September 17, 2004, why they should
not be held in default.
On September 9, 2004, before the ALJ
ruled on the motions for default,
Newspring filed motions for summary
determinations that there has been a
violation of section 337 and that a
domestic industry has been established
with respect to each of the asserted
patents. Newspring sought a
recommendation for the issuance of a
general exclusion order.
On September 23, 2004, the IA filed
a response supporting the motions with
respect to most but not all issues. He
supported a summary determination
that the domestic industry requirement
had been satisfied as to each of the
patents in issue. He also supported a
summary determination that Jiangsu
had violated section 337 with respect to
each of the patents at issue. As to
Taizhou, the IA supported a summary
determination of violation as to the ‘420
patent, but not as to the ‘138 and ‘404
patents.
On October 12, 2004, the ALJ issued
an ID (Order No. 7) with respect to
Newspring’s motion to find respondents
in default. Noting that neither
respondent responded to the notice to
show cause, the ALJ found the
respondents in default. The Commission
determined not to review the ID.
On February 10, 2005, the ALJ issued
the subject ID (Order No. 8), granting
Newspring’s motions for summary
determinations with respect to most but
not all issues. Consistent with the
position of the IA, the ALJ determined
that a domestic industry had been
established with respect to each of the
asserted patents, and that Jiangsu had
violated section 337 with respect to
each asserted patent as well. He
determined that Taizhou had violated
section 337 with respect to the ‘420
design patent, but found that a genuine
issue of fact remained as to whether the
accused Taizhou products infringed the
E:\FR\FM\26MYN1.SGM
26MYN1
30482
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 101 / Thursday, May 26, 2005 / Notices
‘138 and ‘404 utility patents.
Accordingly, he denied complainant’s
motion as to Taizhou in part. The ALJ
also recommended the issuance of a
general exclusion order and that the
bond permitting temporary importation
during the Presidential review period be
set at 100 percent of the entered value
of the infringing imported product. No
party petitioned for review of the ID.
On March 18, 2005, the Commission
issued a notice of its decision to review
the ID. The notice indicated that the
review ‘‘is for the limited purpose of
examining possible formatting and
typographical errors contained on one
page of the ID.’’ 70 FR 13206, 13206
(March 18, 2005). The notice indicated
that the Commission sought comments
from the parties to the investigation
with respect to the issues under review.
It also indicated that the Commission
sought comments from the parties to the
investigation, interested government
agencies, and any other interested
parties on the issues of remedy, the
public interest, and bonding.
On March 28, 2005, the Commission
received comments from Newspring and
the IA. No reply submissions were
received.
Having examined the relevant
portions of the record in this
investigation, including the ALJ’s Order
No. 8, and the written submissions on
remedy, the public interest, and
bonding, the Commission determined to
adopt Order No. 8 as its determination,
subject to two formatting and
typographical modifications to page 15
of the Order. Further details as to the
modifications are provided in
Commission’s opinion issued in
connection with this final
determination.
The Commission also determined to
issue a general exclusion order
prohibiting unlicensed entry for
consumption of plastic food containers
that infringe the claim of U.S. Design
Patent No. D 415,420, claim 1 of U.S.
Patent No. 6,056,138, or claim 1 of U.S.
Patent No. 6,196,404. In so doing, the
Commission determined that the public
interest factors enumerated in section
337(g) do not preclude the issuance of
the aforementioned remedial order and
that the bond during the Presidential
review period shall be 100 percent of
the entered value of the articles in
question. The Commission’s order was
delivered to the President on the day of
its issuance.
This action is taken under the
authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act
of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(2)), and
sections 210.41 and 210.50 of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure, (19 CFR 210.41 and 210.50).
VerDate jul<14>2003
19:11 May 25, 2005
Jkt 205001
By order of the Commission.
Issued: May 23, 2005.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05–10573 Filed 5–25–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 731–TA–459 (Second
Review)]
Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Film
From Korea
United States International
Trade Commission.
ACTION: Scheduling of an expedited fiveyear review concerning the antidumping
duty order on polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) film from Korea.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives
notice of the scheduling of an expedited
review 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 antidumping
duty order on PET film from Korea
would be likely to lead to continuation
or recurrence of material injury within
a reasonably foreseeable time. For
further information concerning the
conduct of this review 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: May 9, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred
Fischer ((202) 205–3179 or
fred.fischer@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://
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 May 9, 2005, the
Commission determined that the
domestic interested party group
response to its notice of institution (70
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
FR 5473, February 2, 2005) of the
subject five-year review was adequate
and that the respondent interested party
group response was inadequate. The
Commission did not find any other
circumstances that would warrant
conducting a full review.1 Accordingly,
the Commission determined that it
would conduct an expedited review
pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act.
Staff report. A staff report containing
information concerning the subject
matter of the review will be placed in
the nonpublic record on June 2, 2005,
and made available to persons on the
Administrative Protective Order service
list for this review. 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 review and that have provided
individually adequate responses to the
notice of institution,2 and any party
other than an interested party to the
review may file written comments with
the Secretary on what determination the
Commission should reach in the review.
Comments are due on or before
September 6, 2005, and may not contain
new factual information. Any person
that is neither a party to the five-year
review nor an interested party may
submit a brief written statement (which
shall not contain any new factual
information) pertinent to the review by
September 6, 2005. However, should the
Department of Commerce extend the
time limit for its completion of the final
results of its review, the deadline for
comments (which may not contain new
factual information) on Commerce’s
final results is three business days after
the issuance of Commerce’s results. 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). Even where electronic filing of a
document is permitted, certain
documents must also be filed in paper
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 The Commission has found the responses
submitted by DuPont Teijin Films and Mitsubishi
Polyester Film, to be individually adequate.
Comments from other interested parties will not be
accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)).
E:\FR\FM\26MYN1.SGM
26MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 101 (Thursday, May 26, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30481-30482]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-10573]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Inv. No. 337-TA-514]
In the Matter of Certain Plastic Food Containers; Notice of Final
Determination of Violation of Section 337 and Issuance of General
Exclusion Order; 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 find a violation of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, in the above-captioned investigation.
Notice is also given that the Commission has issued a general exclusion
order in the above-captioned investigation and has terminated the
investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Diehl, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-3095. Copies of
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 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 the matter can
be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-
1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By a notice published on June 22, 2004, the
Commission instituted an investigation into alleged violations of
section 337 in the importation and sale of certain plastic food
containers by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent
No. 6,056,138 (the `` `138 patent''); of U.S. Patent No. 6,196,404 (the
`` `404 patent''); and of U.S. Design Patent No. D 415,420 (the `` `420
patent''). 69 FR 34691 (June 22, 2004). Plastic food containers such as
those claimed by the patents in issue are used for packaging foods from
restaurants, food processors, and educational and government
institutions with food service programs.
On August 19, 2004, complainant Newspring Industrial Corp.
(``Newspring'') moved for an order directing that each of the two
respondents, Jiangsu Sainty Corporation, Ltd. (``Jiangsu'') and Taizhou
Huasen Household Necessities, Co., Ltd. (``Taizhou''), show cause as to
why each should not be found in default for failure to respond to the
complaint and notice of investigation. Newspring also requested an
order finding the respondents in default if they failed to show cause.
On August 27, 2004, the Investigative Attorney (``IA'') filed a
response in support of the motion for an order to show cause, but
opposed any finding that respondents are in default as premature. On
August 30, 2004, the ALJ issued Order No. 5, directing respondents to
show cause no later than September 17, 2004, why they should not be
held in default.
On September 9, 2004, before the ALJ ruled on the motions for
default, Newspring filed motions for summary determinations that there
has been a violation of section 337 and that a domestic industry has
been established with respect to each of the asserted patents.
Newspring sought a recommendation for the issuance of a general
exclusion order.
On September 23, 2004, the IA filed a response supporting the
motions with respect to most but not all issues. He supported a summary
determination that the domestic industry requirement had been satisfied
as to each of the patents in issue. He also supported a summary
determination that Jiangsu had violated section 337 with respect to
each of the patents at issue. As to Taizhou, the IA supported a summary
determination of violation as to the `420 patent, but not as to the
`138 and `404 patents.
On October 12, 2004, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 7) with
respect to Newspring's motion to find respondents in default. Noting
that neither respondent responded to the notice to show cause, the ALJ
found the respondents in default. The Commission determined not to
review the ID.
On February 10, 2005, the ALJ issued the subject ID (Order No. 8),
granting Newspring's motions for summary determinations with respect to
most but not all issues. Consistent with the position of the IA, the
ALJ determined that a domestic industry had been established with
respect to each of the asserted patents, and that Jiangsu had violated
section 337 with respect to each asserted patent as well. He determined
that Taizhou had violated section 337 with respect to the `420 design
patent, but found that a genuine issue of fact remained as to whether
the accused Taizhou products infringed the
[[Page 30482]]
`138 and `404 utility patents. Accordingly, he denied complainant's
motion as to Taizhou in part. The ALJ also recommended the issuance of
a general exclusion order and that the bond permitting temporary
importation during the Presidential review period be set at 100 percent
of the entered value of the infringing imported product. No party
petitioned for review of the ID.
On March 18, 2005, the Commission issued a notice of its decision
to review the ID. The notice indicated that the review ``is for the
limited purpose of examining possible formatting and typographical
errors contained on one page of the ID.'' 70 FR 13206, 13206 (March 18,
2005). The notice indicated that the Commission sought comments from
the parties to the investigation with respect to the issues under
review. It also indicated that the Commission sought comments from the
parties to the investigation, interested government agencies, and any
other interested parties on the issues of remedy, the public interest,
and bonding.
On March 28, 2005, the Commission received comments from Newspring
and the IA. No reply submissions were received.
Having examined the relevant portions of the record in this
investigation, including the ALJ's Order No. 8, and the written
submissions on remedy, the public interest, and bonding, the Commission
determined to adopt Order No. 8 as its determination, subject to two
formatting and typographical modifications to page 15 of the Order.
Further details as to the modifications are provided in Commission's
opinion issued in connection with this final determination.
The Commission also determined to issue a general exclusion order
prohibiting unlicensed entry for consumption of plastic food containers
that infringe the claim of U.S. Design Patent No. D 415,420, claim 1 of
U.S. Patent No. 6,056,138, or claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,196,404. In
so doing, the Commission determined that the public interest factors
enumerated in section 337(g) do not preclude the issuance of the
aforementioned remedial order and that the bond during the Presidential
review period shall be 100 percent of the entered value of the articles
in question. The Commission's order was delivered to the President on
the day of its issuance.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(2)), and sections 210.41 and
210.50 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, (19 CFR
210.41 and 210.50).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: May 23, 2005.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-10573 Filed 5-25-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P