In the Matter of Certain Rubber Antidegradants, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Determination To Review a Final Initial Determination; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding, 20131-20132 [E6-5884]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 2006 / Notices
information, justifying the addition of
the newly-asserted claims of the ‘308
patent. The ALJ also found that adding
the newly-asserted claims of the ‘889
patent and the ’514 patent to the
complaint did not prejudice the parties,
because they had been notified that
these claims were at issue early on in
the investigation. Moreover, the ALJ
noted that he had extended the target
date by one month in order to alleviate
any concerns regarding the amount of
time remaining for discovery. No
petitions for review of the ID were filed.
Having examined the record of this
investigation, the Commission has
determined not to review the ALJ’s ID.
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
§ 210.42 of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: April 14, 2006.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E6–5887 Filed 4–18–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Inv. No. 337–TA–533]
In the Matter of Certain Rubber
Antidegradants, Components Thereof,
and Products Containing Same; Notice
of Commission Determination To
Review a Final Initial Determination;
Schedule for Filing Written
Submissions on the Issues Under
Review and on Remedy, the Public
Interest, and Bonding
International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review
in its entirety the final initial
determination (‘‘ID’’) issued by the
presiding administrative law judge
(‘‘ALJ’’) on February 17, 2006, in the
above-captioned investigation.
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. Copies of the ALJ’s ID and all
other 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:09 Apr 18, 2006
Jkt 208001
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 section 337
investigation on March 29, 2005, based
on a complaint filed by Flexsys America
LP. 70 FR 15885 (March 29, 2005). The
complaint, as supplemented, 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 rubber
antidegradants, components thereof,
and products containing same that
infringe claims 30 and 61 of U.S. Patent
No. 5,117,063 (‘‘the ’063 patent’’),
claims 7 and 11 of U.S. Patent No.
5,608,111 (‘‘the ’111 patent’’), and
claims 1, 32, and 40 of U.S. Patent No.
6,140,538 (‘‘the ’538 patent’’). The
complaint and notice of investigation
named five respondents. The
investigation was subsequently
terminated as to two respondents and as
to the ’538 patent.
On February 17, 2006, the ALJ issued
his final ID finding a violation of section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), by
respondents Sinorgchem Co., Shandong,
and Sovereign Chemical Company, but
finding no violation of section 337 by
respondent Korea Kumho Petrochemical
Co., Ltd. The ALJ recommended that the
Commission issue limited exclusion
orders, but did not recommend that any
bond be imposed for importations
during the Presidential review period.
All parties petitioned for review of
various parts of the final ID.
Having examined the record in this
investigation, including the ALJ’s final
ID, the petitions for review, and the
responses thereto, the Commission has
determined to review the final ID in its
entirety. The Commission’s review
includes the issue of whether the ALJ
properly determined that the issue of
infringement by the P1 and P2 processes
of Korea Kumho Petrochemical Co., Ltd.
was not before him, but that review is
only for the purpose of making a
correction to the final ID, i.e., to
substitute ‘‘Motion No. 533–61’’ for
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
20131
‘‘Motion No. 533–57’’ on page 96 of the
final ID. The Commission has otherwise
concluded that the ALJ was correct in
his determination on this issue.
On review, the Commission requests
briefing based on the evidentiary record.
While the Commission has determined
to review the final ID in its entirety, it
is particularly interested in briefing on
the issues of claim construction and
indefiniteness, especially with respect
to the term ‘‘controlled amount of protic
material,’’ which appears in all the
asserted claims. In addressing the
question of claim construction, each
party should specifically identify those
portions of the claim language,
specification, and prosecution history
(and other evidence, if appropriate)
which support the construction it
advocates. The Commission is also
interested in receiving answers to the
following questions:
1. With respect to the ID’s
construction of the term ‘‘controlled
amount of protic material,’’ what is the
basis for including ‘‘the desired
selectivity,’’ given that col. 4, ll. 48–50
(’063 patent) states: ‘‘A ‘controlled
amount’ of protic material is an amount
up to that which inhibits the reaction of
aniline with nitrobenzene * * *,’’ a
statement which does not contain the
term ‘‘selectivity’’?
2. Given that the ’111 patent is based
on a continuation-in-part application,
what is the legal basis for using matter
in the claims and specification of that
patent not common to the disclosure of
the ’063 patent to construe the claims of
the ’063 patent? What is the legal basis
for using the prosecution history of the
’111 patent to construe the claims of the
’063 patent?
3. Referring to the ALJ’s definition of
‘‘controlled amount of protic material’’
in the ID at 78–79, what is the meaning
of the terms ‘‘inhibited’’ and ‘‘desired
selectivity’’? How are these terms
applied to determine infringement by
the accused processes? With respect to
the claim construction of ‘‘controlled
amount of protic material’’ adopted in
the ID, what is the evidence that the
claims, specification, and prosecution
history would provide a person of
ordinary skill in the art with knowledge
of what constitutes ‘‘inhibition’’ and the
‘‘desired selectivity’’?
4. With respect to the licensing issues
raised by Korea Kumho Petrochemical
Co., Ltd., which are stated to be subject
to Korean law, state the applicable
Korean law and discuss how it applies.
5. With respect to the estoppel issue
raised by Korea Kumho Petrochemical
Co., Ltd., state what law (Korean, U.S.,
or other) applies and how it applies.
E:\FR\FM\19APN1.SGM
19APN1
cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
20132
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 2006 / Notices
In connection with the final
disposition of this investigation, the
Commission may (1) issue an order that
could result in the exclusion of the
subject articles from entry into the
United States, and/or (2) issue one or
more cease and desist orders that could
result in respondents being required to
cease and desist from engaging in unfair
acts in the importation and sale of such
articles. Accordingly, the Commission is
interested in receiving written
submissions that address the form of
remedy, if any, that should be ordered.
If a party seeks exclusion of an article
from entry into the United States for
purposes other than entry for
consumption, the party should so
indicate and provide information
establishing that activities involving
other types of entry either are adversely
affecting it or likely to do so. For
background, see In the Matter of Certain
Devices for Connecting Computers via
Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360,
USITC Pub. No. 2843 (December 1994)
(Commission Opinion).
If the Commission contemplates some
form of remedy, it must consider the
effects of that remedy upon the public
interest. The factors the Commission
will consider include the effect that an
exclusion order and/or cease and desist
orders would have on (1) The public
health and welfare, (2) competitive
conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S.
production of articles that are like or
directly competitive with those that are
subject to investigation, and (4) U.S.
consumers. The Commission is
therefore interested in receiving written
submissions that address the
aforementioned public interest factors
in the context of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form
of remedy, the President has 60 days to
approve or disapprove the
Commission’s action. During this
period, the subject articles would be
entitled to enter the United States under
bond, in an amount determined by the
Commission and prescribed by the
Secretary of the Treasury. The
Commission is therefore interested in
receiving submissions concerning the
amount of the bond that should be
imposed.
Written Submissions: The parties to
the investigation are requested to file
written submissions on the issues under
review. The submissions should be
concise and thoroughly referenced to
the record in this investigation. Parties
to the investigation, interested
government agencies, and any other
interested parties are encouraged to file
written submissions on the issues of
remedy, the public interest, and
bonding. Such submissions should
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:09 Apr 18, 2006
Jkt 208001
address the February 17, 2006,
recommended determination by the ALJ
on remedy and bonding. Complainant
and the Commission investigative
attorney are also requested to submit
proposed remedial orders for the
Commission’s consideration. The
written submissions and proposed
remedial orders must be filed no later
than close of business on April 24, 2006.
Reply submissions must be filed no later
than the close of business on May 1,
2006. No further submissions on these
issues will be permitted unless
otherwise ordered by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions
must file the original document and 12
true copies thereof on or before the
deadlines stated above with the Office
of the Secretary. Any person desiring to
submit a document (or portion thereof)
to the Commission in confidence must
request confidential treatment unless
the information has already been
granted such treatment during the
proceedings. All such requests should
be directed to the Secretary of the
Commission and must include a full
statement of the reasons why the
Commission should grant such
treatment. See section 201.6 of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for
which confidential treatment by the
Commission is sought will be treated
accordingly. All nonconfidential written
submissions will be available for public
inspection at the Office of the Secretary.
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
§ 210.42–.46 of the Commission’s Rules
of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.42–.46).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: April 13, 2006.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E6–5884 Filed 4–18–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–865–867
(Review)]
Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings
From Italy, Malaysia, and the
Philippines
United States International
Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice of Commission
determinations to conduct full five-year
reviews concerning the antidumping
duty orders on stainless steel butt-weld
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
pipe fittings from Italy, Malaysia, and
the Philippines.
SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives
notice that it will proceed with full
reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of
the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.
1675(c)(5)) to determine whether
revocation of the antidumping duty
orders on stainless steel butt-weld pipe
fittings from Italy, Malaysia, and the
Philippines would be likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of material
injury within a reasonably foreseeable
time. A schedule for the reviews will be
established and announced at a later
date. 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: April 10, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary Messer (202–205–3193), 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
these reviews may be viewed on the
Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS)
at https://edis.usitc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April
10, 2006, the Commission determined
that it should proceed to full reviews in
the subject five-year reviews pursuant to
section 751(c)(5) of the Act. The
Commission found that the domestic
interested party group response to its
notice of institution (71 FR 140, January
3, 2006) was adequate and that the
respondent interested party group
response with respect to Malaysia was
adequate and decided to conduct a full
review with respect to the order
covering stainless steel butt-weld pipe
fittings from Malaysia. The Commission
found that the respondent interested
party group responses with respect to
Italy and the Philippines were
inadequate. However, the Commission
determined to conduct full reviews
concerning stainless steel butt-weld
pipe fittings from Italy and the
Philippines to promote administrative
E:\FR\FM\19APN1.SGM
19APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 19, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20131-20132]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-5884]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Inv. No. 337-TA-533]
In the Matter of Certain Rubber Antidegradants, Components
Thereof, and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission
Determination To Review a Final Initial Determination; Schedule for
Filing Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy,
the Public Interest, and Bonding
AGENCY: International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review in its entirety the final initial
determination (``ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law judge
(``ALJ'') on February 17, 2006, in the above-captioned investigation.
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. Copies of the
ALJ's ID and all other 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 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 section 337
investigation on March 29, 2005, based on a complaint filed by Flexsys
America LP. 70 FR 15885 (March 29, 2005). The complaint, as
supplemented, 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 rubber antidegradants, components thereof, and products
containing same that infringe claims 30 and 61 of U.S. Patent No.
5,117,063 (``the '063 patent''), claims 7 and 11 of U.S. Patent No.
5,608,111 (``the '111 patent''), and claims 1, 32, and 40 of U.S.
Patent No. 6,140,538 (``the '538 patent''). The complaint and notice of
investigation named five respondents. The investigation was
subsequently terminated as to two respondents and as to the '538
patent.
On February 17, 2006, the ALJ issued his final ID finding a
violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19
U.S.C. 1337), by respondents Sinorgchem Co., Shandong, and Sovereign
Chemical Company, but finding no violation of section 337 by respondent
Korea Kumho Petrochemical Co., Ltd. The ALJ recommended that the
Commission issue limited exclusion orders, but did not recommend that
any bond be imposed for importations during the Presidential review
period. All parties petitioned for review of various parts of the final
ID.
Having examined the record in this investigation, including the
ALJ's final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto,
the Commission has determined to review the final ID in its entirety.
The Commission's review includes the issue of whether the ALJ properly
determined that the issue of infringement by the P1 and P2 processes of
Korea Kumho Petrochemical Co., Ltd. was not before him, but that review
is only for the purpose of making a correction to the final ID, i.e.,
to substitute ``Motion No. 533-61'' for ``Motion No. 533-57'' on page
96 of the final ID. The Commission has otherwise concluded that the ALJ
was correct in his determination on this issue.
On review, the Commission requests briefing based on the
evidentiary record. While the Commission has determined to review the
final ID in its entirety, it is particularly interested in briefing on
the issues of claim construction and indefiniteness, especially with
respect to the term ``controlled amount of protic material,'' which
appears in all the asserted claims. In addressing the question of claim
construction, each party should specifically identify those portions of
the claim language, specification, and prosecution history (and other
evidence, if appropriate) which support the construction it advocates.
The Commission is also interested in receiving answers to the following
questions:
1. With respect to the ID's construction of the term ``controlled
amount of protic material,'' what is the basis for including ``the
desired selectivity,'' given that col. 4, ll. 48-50 ('063 patent)
states: ``A `controlled amount' of protic material is an amount up to
that which inhibits the reaction of aniline with nitrobenzene * * *,''
a statement which does not contain the term ``selectivity''?
2. Given that the '111 patent is based on a continuation-in-part
application, what is the legal basis for using matter in the claims and
specification of that patent not common to the disclosure of the '063
patent to construe the claims of the '063 patent? What is the legal
basis for using the prosecution history of the '111 patent to construe
the claims of the '063 patent?
3. Referring to the ALJ's definition of ``controlled amount of
protic material'' in the ID at 78-79, what is the meaning of the terms
``inhibited'' and ``desired selectivity''? How are these terms applied
to determine infringement by the accused processes? With respect to the
claim construction of ``controlled amount of protic material'' adopted
in the ID, what is the evidence that the claims, specification, and
prosecution history would provide a person of ordinary skill in the art
with knowledge of what constitutes ``inhibition'' and the ``desired
selectivity''?
4. With respect to the licensing issues raised by Korea Kumho
Petrochemical Co., Ltd., which are stated to be subject to Korean law,
state the applicable Korean law and discuss how it applies.
5. With respect to the estoppel issue raised by Korea Kumho
Petrochemical Co., Ltd., state what law (Korean, U.S., or other)
applies and how it applies.
[[Page 20132]]
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the
Commission may (1) issue an order that could result in the exclusion of
the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2)
issue one or more cease and desist orders that could result in
respondents being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair
acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the
Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address
the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party seeks
exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for purposes
other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate and
provide information establishing that activities involving other types
of entry either are adversely affecting it or likely to do so. For
background, see In the Matter of Certain Devices for Connecting
Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-360, USITC Pub. No. 2843
(December 1994) (Commission Opinion).
If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must
consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The
factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an
exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders would have on (1) The
public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S.
economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly
competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S.
consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written
submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in
the context of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the President has 60
days to approve or disapprove the Commission's action. During this
period, the subject articles would be entitled to enter the United
States under bond, in an amount determined by the Commission and
prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Commission is
therefore interested in receiving submissions concerning the amount of
the bond that should be imposed.
Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation are requested
to file written submissions on the issues under review. The submissions
should be concise and thoroughly referenced to the record in this
investigation. Parties to the investigation, interested government
agencies, and any other interested parties are encouraged to file
written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and
bonding. Such submissions should address the February 17, 2006,
recommended determination by the ALJ on remedy and bonding. Complainant
and the Commission investigative attorney are also requested to submit
proposed remedial orders for the Commission's consideration. The
written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later
than close of business on April 24, 2006. Reply submissions must be
filed no later than the close of business on May 1, 2006. No further
submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered
by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document
and 12 true copies thereof on or before the deadlines stated above with
the Office of the Secretary. Any person desiring to submit a document
(or portion thereof) to the Commission in confidence must request
confidential treatment unless the information has already been granted
such treatment during the proceedings. All such requests should be
directed to the Secretary of the Commission and must include a full
statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such
treatment. See section 201.6 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by
the Commission is sought will be treated accordingly. All
nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public
inspection at the Office of the Secretary.
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 Sec. 210.42-.46 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
(19 CFR 210.42-.46).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: April 13, 2006.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E6-5884 Filed 4-18-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
