Certain Systems for Detecting and Removing Viruses or Worms, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same; Termination of Investigation; Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order and a Cease and Desist Order, 46885-46886 [05-15934]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 154 / Thursday, August 11, 2005 / Notices Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone 202–205– 2576. Authority: The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2005). Scope of Investigation: Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on August 5, 2005, ordered that— (1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain tissue converting machinery, including rewinders, tail sealers, trim removers, and components thereof, by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 5,979,818, claims 1–5 of U.S. Patent No. Re. 35,729, and claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 5,475,917, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337. (2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served: (a) The complainant is— Fabio Perini North America, Inc., 3060 South Ridge Road, Green Bay, Wisconsin 54304; (b) The respondent is the following company alleged to be in violation of section 337 and upon which the complaint is to be served: Chan Li Machinery, Co., Ltd., 103 Wencheng Rd., Taishan Hsiang, Taipei Hsien, Taiwan 243; (c) David O. Lloyd, Esq., Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Room 401–M, Washington, DC 20436, who shall be the Commission investigative attorney, party to this investigation; and (3) For the investigation so instituted, the Honorable Sidney Harris is designated as the presiding administrative law judge. A response to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondent in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(d) and 210.13(a), such response will be considered by the Commission if received no later than 20 VerDate jul<14>2003 16:14 Aug 10, 2005 Jkt 205001 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting the response to the complaint will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown. Failure of the respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter both an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of a limited exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent. By order of the Commission. Issued: August 5, 2005. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 05–15938 Filed 8–10–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Inv. No. 337–TA–510] Certain Systems for Detecting and Removing Viruses or Worms, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same; Termination of Investigation; Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order and a Cease and Desist Order U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has terminated the abovecaptioned investigation in which it has found a violation of the Tariff Act of 1930 and has issued a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan J. Engler, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202– 205–3112. Copies of the public version of the ID and 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, PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 46885 telephone 202–205–2000. Hearingimpaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This patent-based section 337 investigation was instituted by the Commission on June 3, 2004, based on a complaint filed by Trend Micro Inc. (‘‘Trend Micro’’) of Cupertino, California. 69 FR 32044–45 (2004). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation into the United States, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain systems for detecting and removing viruses or worms, components thereof, and products containing same by reason of infringement of claims 1–22 of U.S. Patent No. 5,623,600 (‘‘the 600 patent’’). The notice of investigation named Fortinet, Inc. (‘‘Fortinet’’) of Sunnyvale, California as the sole respondent. On October 12, 2004, the ALJ issued an initial determination (ID) (Order No. 6) terminating the investigation as to claims 2, 5–6, 9–10, and 16–22 of the 600 patent based upon Trend Micro’s unopposed motion to withdraw these claims. The Commission did not review Order No. 6, hence the claims of the 600 patent in issue are claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 11–15. On December 14, 2004, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 13) granting complainant Trend Micro’s motion for a summary determination that it satisfies the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. Order No. 13 was not reviewed by the Commission. An evidentiary hearing was held from January 24, 2005 to January 28, 2005. On March 29, 2005, a second evidentiary hearing was conducted and additional exhibits received into evidence. On May 9, 2005, the administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) issued his final ID finding a violation of section 337 based on his findings that claims 4, 7, 8, and 11–15 of the 600 patent are not invalid or unenforceable, and are infringed by respondent’s products. The ALJ also found that claims 1 and 3 of the 600 patent are invalid as anticipated by prior art and that a domestic industry exists. He also issued his recommended determination on remedy and bonding. On May 20, 2005, respondent Fortinet filed a petition for review of the final ID E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1 46886 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 154 / Thursday, August 11, 2005 / Notices and complainant Trend Micro filed a contingent petition for review. The IA did not file a petition. On May 27, 2005, Fortinet filed a response to Trend Micro’s contingent petition for review, and Trend Micro filed a response to Fortinet’s petition for review. On June 2, 2005, the IA filed a response to Trend Micro and Fortinet’s petition for review. On July 8, 2005, the Commission issued a notice indicating that it had determined not to review the ALJ’s final ID on violation, thereby finding a violation of section 337.70 FR 40731 (July 14, 2005). The Commission also invited the parties to file written submission regarding the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding, and provided a schedule for filing such submissions. Having reviewed the record in this investigation, including the parties’ written submissions and responses thereto, the Commission determined that the appropriate form of relief in this investigation is a limited exclusion order prohibiting the unlicensed entry of systems for detecting and removing viruses or worms, components thereof and products containing same covered by claims 4, 7, 8, and 11–15 of the ‘600 patent. The order covers systems for detecting and removing viruses or worms, components thereof and products containing same that are manufactured abroad by or on behalf of, or imported by or on behalf of the respondent, 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 the respondent from importing, selling, marketing, advertising, distributing, offering for sale, transferring (except for exportation), and soliciting U.S. agents or distributors for systems for detecting and removing viruses or worms, components thereof and products containing same. The Commission further determined that the public interest factors enumerated in sections 337(d)(1) and (f)(1), 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1) and (f)(1), do not preclude issuance of either the limited exclusion order or the cease and desist order. In addition, the Commission determined that the amount of bond to permit temporary importation 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 and opinion in support thereof were delivered to the President on the day of their issuance. VerDate jul<14>2003 16:14 Aug 10, 2005 Jkt 205001 This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and section 210.50 of the Commission’s Interim Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.50). Issued: August 8, 2005. By order of the Commission. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 05–15934 Filed 8–10–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comments Requested 60-Day notice of information collection under review: Application for registration (DEA Form 224); Application for registration renewal (DEA Form 224a); and Affidavit for chain renewal (DEA Form 224B). ACTION: The Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with 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 October 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 Patricia M. Good, Liaison and Policy Section, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, Washington, DC 20537. 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, PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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: Application for Registration (DEA Form 224); Application for Registration Renewal (DEA Form 224a); and Affidavit for Chain Renewal (DEA Form 224B) (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Justice sponsoring the collection: Form Number: DEA Form 224, 224a and 224B; Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Business or other forprofit. Other: Not-for-Profit Institutions; State, local or tribal government. All firms and individuals who distribute or dispense controlled substances must register with the DEA under the Controlled Substances Act. Registration is needed for control measures over legal handlers of controlled substances and is used to monitor their activities. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: It is estimated that 13,510 persons complete DEA Form 224 on paper, at 12 minutes per form, for an annual burden of 2,702 hours. It is estimated that 41,839 persons complete DEA Form 224 electronically, at 8 minutes per form, for an annual burden of 5,579 hours. It is estimated that 159,009 persons complete DEA Form 224a on paper, at 12 minutes per form, for an annual burden of 31,820 hours. It is estimated that 178,884 persons complete DEA Form 224a electronically, at 4 minutes per form, for an annual burden of 11,926 hours. It is estimated that 72 persons complete DEA Form 224b, at 5 hours per form, for an annual burden of 360 hours. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: It is estimated that this E:\FR\FM\11AUN1.SGM 11AUN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 154 (Thursday, August 11, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46885-46886]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-15934]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Inv. No. 337-TA-510]


Certain Systems for Detecting and Removing Viruses or Worms, 
Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same; Termination of 
Investigation; Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order and a Cease and 
Desist Order

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has terminated the above-captioned investigation in which it 
has found a violation of the Tariff Act of 1930 and has issued a 
limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan J. Engler, Esq., Office of 
the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-3112. Copies of the public 
version of the ID and 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. Hearing-impaired persons 
are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by 
contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. General 
information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing 
its Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this 
investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket 
(EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This patent-based section 337 investigation 
was instituted by the Commission on June 3, 2004, based on a complaint 
filed by Trend Micro Inc. (``Trend Micro'') of Cupertino, California. 
69 FR 32044-45 (2004). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 
in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation 
into the United States, or the sale within the United States after 
importation of certain systems for detecting and removing viruses or 
worms, components thereof, and products containing same by reason of 
infringement of claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 5,623,600 (``the 600 
patent''). The notice of investigation named Fortinet, Inc. 
(``Fortinet'') of Sunnyvale, California as the sole respondent.
    On October 12, 2004, the ALJ issued an initial determination (ID) 
(Order No. 6) terminating the investigation as to claims 2, 5-6, 9-10, 
and 16-22 of the 600 patent based upon Trend Micro's unopposed motion 
to withdraw these claims. The Commission did not review Order No. 6, 
hence the claims of the 600 patent in issue are claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 
and 11-15.
    On December 14, 2004, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 13) granting 
complainant Trend Micro's motion for a summary determination that it 
satisfies the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. 
Order No. 13 was not reviewed by the Commission.
    An evidentiary hearing was held from January 24, 2005 to January 
28, 2005. On March 29, 2005, a second evidentiary hearing was conducted 
and additional exhibits received into evidence.
    On May 9, 2005, the administrative law judge (``ALJ'') issued his 
final ID finding a violation of section 337 based on his findings that 
claims 4, 7, 8, and 11-15 of the 600 patent are not invalid or 
unenforceable, and are infringed by respondent's products. The ALJ also 
found that claims 1 and 3 of the 600 patent are invalid as anticipated 
by prior art and that a domestic industry exists. He also issued his 
recommended determination on remedy and bonding.
    On May 20, 2005, respondent Fortinet filed a petition for review of 
the final ID

[[Page 46886]]

and complainant Trend Micro filed a contingent petition for review. The 
IA did not file a petition. On May 27, 2005, Fortinet filed a response 
to Trend Micro's contingent petition for review, and Trend Micro filed 
a response to Fortinet's petition for review. On June 2, 2005, the IA 
filed a response to Trend Micro and Fortinet's petition for review.
    On July 8, 2005, the Commission issued a notice indicating that it 
had determined not to review the ALJ's final ID on violation, thereby 
finding a violation of section 337.70 FR 40731 (July 14, 2005). The 
Commission also invited the parties to file written submission 
regarding the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding, and 
provided a schedule for filing such submissions.
    Having reviewed the record in this investigation, including the 
parties' written submissions and responses thereto, the Commission 
determined that the appropriate form of relief in this investigation is 
a limited exclusion order prohibiting the unlicensed entry of systems 
for detecting and removing viruses or worms, components thereof and 
products containing same covered by claims 4, 7, 8, and 11-15 of the 
`600 patent. The order covers systems for detecting and removing 
viruses or worms, components thereof and products containing same that 
are manufactured abroad by or on behalf of, or imported by or on behalf 
of the respondent, 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 the respondent from importing, selling, marketing, 
advertising, distributing, offering for sale, transferring (except for 
exportation), and soliciting U.S. agents or distributors for systems 
for detecting and removing viruses or worms, components thereof and 
products containing same.
    The Commission further determined that the public interest factors 
enumerated in sections 337(d)(1) and (f)(1), 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1) and 
(f)(1), do not preclude issuance of either the limited exclusion order 
or the cease and desist order. In addition, the Commission determined 
that the amount of bond to permit temporary importation 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 and 
opinion in support thereof were delivered to the President on the day 
of their issuance.
    This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and section 210.50 of 
the Commission's Interim Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 
210.50).

    Issued: August 8, 2005.

    By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-15934 Filed 8-10-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P