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