In the Matter of Certain Set-Top Boxes and Components Thereof; Notice of Commission Determination To Terminate the Investigation on the Basis of a Settlement Agreement, 55919-55920 [05-19036]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 184 / Friday, September 23, 2005 / Notices
August 19, 2005 under section 337 of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19
U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Bavarian
Nordic A/S. A letter supplementing and
amending the complaint was filed on
September 9, 2005. The complaint, as
supplemented and amended, alleges
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 Modified Vaccinia Ankara
viruses and vaccines and
pharmaceutical compositions based
thereon by reason of infringement of
claims 1, 4, 5, and 34 of U.S. Patent No.
6,761,893 and claims 1, 2–9, and 13–16
of U.S. Patent No. 6,913,752, and
misappropriation of trade secrets. The
complaint further alleges that there
exists an industry in the United States
as required by section 337.
The complainant requests that the
Commission institute an investigation
and, after the investigation, issue a
permanent exclusion order and a
permanent cease and desist order.
ADDRESSES: The complaint and
supplemental letter, except for any
confidential information contained
therein, are 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., Room
112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone
202–205–2000. Hearing-impaired
individuals are advised that information
on this matter can be obtained 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 at 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin
D.E. Joffre, Esq., Office of Unfair Import
Investigations, U.S. International Trade
Commission, telephone 202–205–2550
or Thomas S. Fusco, Esq., Office of
Unfair Import Investigations, U.S.
International Trade Commission,
telephone 202–205–2571.
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:21 Sep 22, 2005
Jkt 205001
International Trade Commission, on
September 19, 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:
(a) 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 Modified Vaccinia Ankara
(‘‘MVA’’) viruses and vaccines and
pharmaceutical compositions based
thereon by reason of infringement of
claims 1, 4, 5, or 34 of U.S. Patent No.
6,761,893 or claims 1, 2–9, 13–15 or 16
of U.S. Patent No. 6,913,752, and
whether an industry in the United
States exists or is in the process of being
established as required by subsection
(a)(2) of section 337; and
(b) Whether there is a violation of
subsection (a)(1)(A) of section 337 in the
importation of certain MVA viruses and
vaccines and pharmaceutical
compositions based thereon or in the
sale of such articles by reason of
misappropriation of trade secrets, the
threat or effect of which is to destroy or
substantially injure an industry in the
United States, and whether an industry
in the United States.
(2) Pursuant to Commission Rule
210.50(b)(1), 19 CFR 210.50(b)(1), the
presiding administrative law judge shall
take evidence or other information and
hear arguments from the parties and
other interested persons with respect to
the public interest in this investigation,
as appropriate, and provide the
Commission with findings of fact on
this issue.
(3) 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—Bavarian
Nordic A/S, Bogeskovvej 9, DK–3490
Kvistgard, Denmarky.
(b) The respondent is the following
company alleged to be in violation of
Section 337 and upon which the
complaint is to be served—Acambis,
Plc, Peterhouse Technology Park, 100
Fulbourne Road, Cambridge, CB1 9PT,
United Kingdom.
(c) Erin D.E. Joffre and Thomas S.
Fusco, Office of Unfair Import
Investigations, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Room
401, Washington, DC 20436, who shall
be the Commission investigative
attorneys, party to this investigation;
(4) For the investigation so instituted,
the Honorable Robert L. Barton, Jr. is
designated as the presiding
administrative law judge.
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
55919
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
days after the date of service by the
Commission of the complaint and notice
of investigation. Extensions of time for
submitting a 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 this
notice, 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: September 19, 2005
Marilyn Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05–19037 Filed 9–22–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Inv. No. 337–TA–454]
In the Matter of Certain Set-Top Boxes
and Components Thereof; Notice of
Commission Determination To
Terminate the Investigation on the
Basis of a Settlement Agreement
International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to
terminate the above-captioned
investigation on the basis of a settlement
agreement.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Wayne Herrington, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–3090, or Michael Liberman, Esq.,
Office of the General Counsel, U.S.
E:\FR\FM\23SEN1.SGM
23SEN1
55920
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 184 / Friday, September 23, 2005 / Notices
International Trade Commission, 500 E
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436,
telephone (202) 205–3115. 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: The
Commission instituted this patent-based
investigation, which concerns
allegations of unfair acts in violation of
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in
the importation and sale of certain settop boxes, on March 21, 2001. 66 FR
15887 (March 21, 2001). Complainants
Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc. of
Pasadena, California, and StarSight
Telecast, Inc. of Fremont, California
(collectively, ‘‘Gemstar’’), named
Pioneer Corporation, Pioneer North
America, Inc., Pioneer Digital
Technologies, Inc., and Pioneer New
Media Technologies, Inc. (collectively,
‘‘Pioneer’’); EchoStar Communications
Corporation and SCI Systems, Inc.
(collectively, ‘‘Echostar’’); and
Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. (‘‘ScientificAtlanta’’) as respondents. Gemstar
alleged that these respondents infringed
certain claims of its patents, including:
U.S. Patent No. 4,706,121 (‘‘the ’121
patent’’); U.S. Patent No. 5,479,268 (‘‘the
‘268 patent’’); and U.S. Patent No.
5,809,204 (‘‘the ’204 patent’’).
The presiding administrative law
judge (‘‘the ALJ’’) issued his final initial
determination (‘‘final ID’’) on June 21,
2002, in which he concluded that there
was no violation of section 337, based
on the following findings: (a)
Complainants had failed to establish
that asserted claims 18–24, 26–28, 31–
33, 36, 42–43, 48–50, 54, 57, 59–61, and
66 of the ’121 patent; claims 1, 3, 8, and
10 of the ’268 patent; and claims 1, 3,
8, and 10 of the ’204 patent are infringed
by respondents; (b) respondents had
failed to establish that the asserted
claims are not valid; (c) respondents had
established that the ’121 patent is
unenforceable for failure to name a coinventor; (d) complainants had engaged
in patent misuse with respect to the ’121
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:21 Sep 22, 2005
Jkt 205001
patent; (e) no industry existed in the
United States, as required by subsection
(a)(2) of section 337, that exploits each
of the ’121, ’268, and ’204 patents in
issue; and (f) there had been an
importation of the set-top boxes which
are the subject of this investigation.
On July 5, 2002, all parties to the
investigation, including the Commission
investigative attorney, filed petitions for
review of various portions of the final
ID.
On August 29, 2002, the Commission
issued notice that it had determined to
review in part, to take no position in
part, and to not review in part the ALJ’s
final ID. Specifically, the Commission
determined to review the issue of the
technical prong of the domestic industry
as it relates to claim 42 of ’204 patent
for the purpose of making a finding as
to claim 42 of that patent. This finding
had been omitted by the ALJ. The
Commission also determined to take no
position on the issue of patent misuse
and not to review the remainder of the
final ID. Finally, the Commission
determined to affirm three ALJ rulings
(involving ALJ Order No. 62, an ALJ
ruling excluding evidence concerning
the doctrine of equivalents, and an ALJ
ruling limiting the testimony time of
one witness) that were appealed to the
Commission by the complainants. In
light of these determinations, the
Commission determined that there was
no violation of section 337 in this
investigation.
Gemstar appealed the Commission’s
final determination to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
(‘‘the Federal Circuit’’ or ‘‘the Court’’).
During the course of the appeal,
Gemstar settled with Pioneer and
EchoStar, and these respondents were
dismissed from the appeal. On
September 16, 2004, the Federal Circuit
issued its decision in the appeal, in
which the Commission’s final
determination was affirmed in part,
vacated in part, and reversed in part,
and the case remanded for further
proceedings consistent with the Court’s
opinion. Gemstar-TV Guide
International, Inc. v. International
Trade Commission, 383 F.3d 1352 (Fed.
Cir. 2004).
On November 29, 2004, the Court
denied Scientific-Atlanta’s petitions for
rehearing and rehearing en banc. On
January 11, 2005, the Court denied
Scientific-Atlanta’s motion to stay
issuance of the mandate and
simultaneously issued its mandate,
returning the case to the Commission,
with Scientific-Atlanta as the sole
respondent.
On February 8, 2005, the Commission
issued an order seeking comments from
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the parties as to how they believed the
Commission should proceed with the
remanded investigation. The original
30-day deadline for receiving comments
from the parties was extended twice, to
June 13, 2005. On that date the private
parties filed a joint motion to terminate
the investigation based on a settlement
agreement, including a patent license
agreement. On June 23, 2005, the
Commission investigative attorney filed
a response supporting the joint motion.
On August 5, 2005, the private parties
filed a public version of the joint
motion.
Having examined the joint motion to
terminate the investigation, the response
thereto, and other relevant documents of
record in this investigation, the
Commission has determined to grant the
joint motion, terminating this
investigation in its entirety.
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 210.21 of the Commission’s
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.21).
Issued: September 19, 2005.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05–19036 Filed 9–22–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division
Notice Pursuant to the National
Cooperative Research and Production
Act of 1993—Controlnet International,
Ltd
Notice is hereby given that, on
September 1, 2005, pursuant to Section
6(a) of the National Cooperative
Research and Production Act of 1993,
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’),
ControlNet International, Ltd.
(‘‘ControlNet’’) has filed written
notifications simultaneously with the
Attorney General and the Federal Trade
Commission disclosing changes in its
membership. The notifications were
filed for the purpose of extending the
Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages
under specified circumstances.
Specifically, McNaughton-McKay
Electric Company, Madison Heights, MI;
IDC Corporation, Dimondale, MI; and
Kawasaki Robotics (USA), Inc., Wixom,
MI have withdrawn as parties to this
venture.
No other changes have been made in
either the membership or planned
E:\FR\FM\23SEN1.SGM
23SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 184 (Friday, September 23, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55919-55920]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19036]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Inv. No. 337-TA-454]
In the Matter of Certain Set-Top Boxes and Components Thereof;
Notice of Commission Determination To Terminate the Investigation on
the Basis of a Settlement Agreement
AGENCY: International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to terminate the above-captioned
investigation on the basis of a settlement agreement.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne Herrington, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3090, or Michael
Liberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S.
[[Page 55920]]
International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC
20436, telephone (202) 205-3115. 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: The Commission instituted this patent-based
investigation, which concerns allegations of unfair acts in violation
of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation and sale of
certain set-top boxes, on March 21, 2001. 66 FR 15887 (March 21, 2001).
Complainants Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc. of Pasadena,
California, and StarSight Telecast, Inc. of Fremont, California
(collectively, ``Gemstar''), named Pioneer Corporation, Pioneer North
America, Inc., Pioneer Digital Technologies, Inc., and Pioneer New
Media Technologies, Inc. (collectively, ``Pioneer''); EchoStar
Communications Corporation and SCI Systems, Inc. (collectively,
``Echostar''); and Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. (``Scientific-Atlanta'') as
respondents. Gemstar alleged that these respondents infringed certain
claims of its patents, including: U.S. Patent No. 4,706,121 (``the '121
patent''); U.S. Patent No. 5,479,268 (``the `268 patent''); and U.S.
Patent No. 5,809,204 (``the '204 patent'').
The presiding administrative law judge (``the ALJ'') issued his
final initial determination (``final ID'') on June 21, 2002, in which
he concluded that there was no violation of section 337, based on the
following findings: (a) Complainants had failed to establish that
asserted claims 18-24, 26-28, 31-33, 36, 42-43, 48-50, 54, 57, 59-61,
and 66 of the '121 patent; claims 1, 3, 8, and 10 of the '268 patent;
and claims 1, 3, 8, and 10 of the '204 patent are infringed by
respondents; (b) respondents had failed to establish that the asserted
claims are not valid; (c) respondents had established that the '121
patent is unenforceable for failure to name a co-inventor; (d)
complainants had engaged in patent misuse with respect to the '121
patent; (e) no industry existed in the United States, as required by
subsection (a)(2) of section 337, that exploits each of the '121, '268,
and '204 patents in issue; and (f) there had been an importation of the
set-top boxes which are the subject of this investigation.
On July 5, 2002, all parties to the investigation, including the
Commission investigative attorney, filed petitions for review of
various portions of the final ID.
On August 29, 2002, the Commission issued notice that it had
determined to review in part, to take no position in part, and to not
review in part the ALJ's final ID. Specifically, the Commission
determined to review the issue of the technical prong of the domestic
industry as it relates to claim 42 of '204 patent for the purpose of
making a finding as to claim 42 of that patent. This finding had been
omitted by the ALJ. The Commission also determined to take no position
on the issue of patent misuse and not to review the remainder of the
final ID. Finally, the Commission determined to affirm three ALJ
rulings (involving ALJ Order No. 62, an ALJ ruling excluding evidence
concerning the doctrine of equivalents, and an ALJ ruling limiting the
testimony time of one witness) that were appealed to the Commission by
the complainants. In light of these determinations, the Commission
determined that there was no violation of section 337 in this
investigation.
Gemstar appealed the Commission's final determination to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (``the Federal
Circuit'' or ``the Court''). During the course of the appeal, Gemstar
settled with Pioneer and EchoStar, and these respondents were dismissed
from the appeal. On September 16, 2004, the Federal Circuit issued its
decision in the appeal, in which the Commission's final determination
was affirmed in part, vacated in part, and reversed in part, and the
case remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Court's
opinion. Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc. v. International Trade
Commission, 383 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
On November 29, 2004, the Court denied Scientific-Atlanta's
petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc. On January 11, 2005, the
Court denied Scientific-Atlanta's motion to stay issuance of the
mandate and simultaneously issued its mandate, returning the case to
the Commission, with Scientific-Atlanta as the sole respondent.
On February 8, 2005, the Commission issued an order seeking
comments from the parties as to how they believed the Commission should
proceed with the remanded investigation. The original 30-day deadline
for receiving comments from the parties was extended twice, to June 13,
2005. On that date the private parties filed a joint motion to
terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement, including
a patent license agreement. On June 23, 2005, the Commission
investigative attorney filed a response supporting the joint motion. On
August 5, 2005, the private parties filed a public version of the joint
motion.
Having examined the joint motion to terminate the investigation,
the response thereto, and other relevant documents of record in this
investigation, the Commission has determined to grant the joint motion,
terminating this investigation in its entirety.
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 210.21 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
(19 CFR 210.21).
Issued: September 19, 2005.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-19036 Filed 9-22-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
