In the Matter of Certain Switches and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Determination To Review a Final Determination on Violation of Section 337; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding, 74327-74329 [E7-25279]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 249 / Monday, December 31, 2007 / Notices
The complainants request that the
Commission institute an investigation
and, after the investigation, issue a
general exclusion order and cease and
desist orders.
ADDRESSES: The complaint, supplement,
and amended complaint, 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
Joffre, Esq., Office of Unfair Import
Investigations, U.S. International Trade
Commission, telephone (202) 205–2550.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
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
(2007).
Scope of Investigation: Having
considered the complaint, the U.S.
International Trade Commission, on
December 19, 2007, 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 R–134a coolant
(otherwise known as 1,1,1,2tetrafluoroethane) by reason of
infringement of claims 1 and 2 of U.S.
Patent No. 5,744,658, 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 complainants are—
INEOS Fluor Holdings Limited, The
Heath, Runcorn, Cheshire, WA74QX,
United Kingdom.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:08 Dec 28, 2007
Jkt 214001
INEOS Fluor Limited, The Heath,
Runcorn, Cheshire, WA74QX, United
Kingdom.
INEOS Fluor Americas LLC, 4990 B ICI
Road, St. Gabriel, LA 70776.
(b) The respondents are the following
entities alleged to be in violation of
section 337, and are the parties upon
which the complaint is to be served:
SinoChem Modern Environmental,
Protection Chemicals (Xi’an) Co., Ltd.,
(Corporation China), Jinhe Industrial
Area, Xi’an Economic-Technological,
Development Zone, Xi’an, 710201,
Shaanxi, China.
SinoChem Ningbo Ltd., 21 Jiangixia Str.,
Ningbo, 315000, Zhejiang, China.
(c) The Commission investigative
attorney, party to this investigation, is
Erin Joffre, Esq., Office of Unfair Import
Investigations, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Room
401E, Washington, DC 20436; and
(3) For the investigation so instituted,
the Honorable Paul J. Luckern is
designated as the presiding
administrative law judge.
Responses to the complaint and the
notice of investigation must be
submitted by the named respondents 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
responses will be considered by the
Commission if received not later than 20
days after the date of service by the
Commission of the complaint and the
notice of investigation. Extensions of
time for submitting responses to the
complaint and the notice of
investigation will not be granted unless
good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a 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 an initial determination
and a final determination containing
such findings, and may result in the
issuance of an exclusion order or cease
and desist order or both directed against
the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E7–25275 Filed 12–28–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
74327
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–589]
In the Matter of Certain Switches and
Products Containing Same; Notice of
Commission Determination To Review
a Final Determination on Violation of
Section 337; Schedule for Filing
Written Submissions on the Issues
Under Review and on Remedy, the
Public Interest, and Bonding
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review a
portion of the final initial determination
(‘‘ID’’) issued by the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on
November 7, 2007, regarding whether
there is a violation of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the
above-captioned investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michelle Walters, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
708–5468. 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 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. 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: This
investigation was instituted on
December 7, 2006, based on a complaint
filed by ATEN International Co., Ltd. of
Taipei, Taiwan, and ATEN Technology,
Inc. of Irvine, California (collectively,
‘‘ATEN’’). The complaint alleged
violations of section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. section 1337) in
the importation into the United States,
the sale for importation, and the sale
within the United States after
importation of certain switches and
products containing the same by reason
of infringement of various claims of
United States Patent No. 7,035,112. The
E:\FR\FM\31DEN1.SGM
31DEN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
74328
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 249 / Monday, December 31, 2007 / Notices
complaint named six respondents:
Belkin International, Inc., Belkin, Inc.
(collectively, ‘‘Belkin’’), Emine
Technology Co., Ltd. (‘‘Emine’’), RATOC
Systems, Inc., RATOC Systems
International, Inc. (collectively,
‘‘RATOC’’), and JustCom Tech, Inc.
(‘‘JustCom’’). The ALJ issued an order
terminating RATOC and JustCom based
on settlement agreements, including a
consent order, which the Commission
has previously determined to review.
On November 7, 2007, the ALJ issued
his final ID, and on November 21, 2007,
he issued his recommended
determination on remedy and bonding.
In his ID, the ALJ found that Belkin’s
and Emine’s accused products do not
infringe asserted claims 1 and 12–21. In
addition, the ALJ found that the claims
are not invalid for anticipation or
obviousness. The ALJ also found that
the claims are not invalid for lack of
written description support and that the
patent is not unenforceable for
inequitable conduct. Further, the ALJ
found that there was no domestic
industry based on the asserted patent.
ATEN, Belkin, Emine, and the
Commission investigative attorney each
filed petitions for review of the ALJ’s ID
and responses to the petitions.
Having examined the record of this
investigation, including the ALJ’s final
ID, the petitions for review, and the
responses thereto, the Commission has
determined (1) to review the ALJ’s claim
construction of the terms ‘‘body,’’
‘‘fixedly attached,’’ and ‘‘integrated
into,’’ and (2) to review the ALJ’s
determinations on infringement,
anticipation, obviousness, and domestic
industry, but (3) not to review the ALJ’s
claim construction of the terms
‘‘connector plugs,’’ ‘‘connector ports,’’
‘‘cable,’’ or ‘‘molded attachment
element,’’ and (4) not to review the
ALJ’s determinations on the level of
skill of a person of ordinary skill in the
art, written description, and inequitable
conduct. With respect to the claim
constructions the Commission has
determined not to review, the
Commission understands the ALJ to
have adopted the reasoning of the party
whose claim construction he adopted.
The parties should brief their
positions on the issues on review with
reference to the applicable law and the
evidentiary record. In connection with
its review, the Commission is
particularly interested in responses to
the following questions:
1. How should the claim term ‘‘body’’
be construed? Please cite claim
language, specification language,
prosecution history, and any relevant
extrinsic evidence to support your
position. In addressing the claim
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:08 Dec 28, 2007
Jkt 214001
language, please comment on whether
one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that claim 1 indicates that
the body is an enclosure designed to
contain a switching circuit and to have
a plurality of cables fixedly attached to
and extending from it.
2. Does the specification limit the
term ‘‘body’’ to an integrally injectionmolded plastic enclosure and/or to an
enclosure that provides good weatherresistance, impact-resistance, and
absolute protection of the internal
circuit board and circuits thereon?
Please cite cases addressing whether
similar language can be or has been
used to limit a claim term.
3. Does the specification distinguish
the prior art through its statement that
‘‘the box 41 includes outer walls that are
made of metal material or rigid plastic
material and assembled together by
means of screws (not shown)’’ in a way
that limits the claims? ‘112 patent, col.
1, ll. 23–25. Please cite cases addressing
whether similar language can be or has
been used to distinguish prior art.
4. If the Commission arrives at a claim
construction not asserted by the parties
or adopts the ALJ’s claim construction,
should the Commission remand the
investigation to the ALJ to develop the
record according to the selected claim
construction?
5. Under your proposed claim
construction of the claim term ‘‘body,’’
do the accused products meet this
limitation?
6. If the Commission were to construe
the claim term ‘‘body’’ (a) to require an
integrally injection-molded plastic
enclosure, (b) to require an enclosure
that provides good weather-resistance,
impact-resistance, and absolute
protection of the internal circuit board
and circuits thereon, or (c) to exclude
‘‘the box 41 includes outer walls that are
made of metal material or rigid plastic
material and assembled together by
means of screws (not shown),’’ do the
accused products meet the limitations
identified in (a), (b), and (c)?
7. If the Commission were to construe
the claim term ‘‘body’’ to exclude the
switching circuit, do the accused
products’’ cables extend from the body
as required by claim 1 of the ‘112
patent?
8. Do Emine’s products have a
plurality of cables?
9. Under your proposed claim
construction of the claim term ‘‘body,’’
is this limitation disclosed by the prior
art?
10. If the Commission were to
construe the claim term ‘‘body’’ (a) to
require an integrally injection-molded
plastic enclosure, (b) to require an
enclosure that provides good weather-
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
resistance, impact-resistance, and
absolute protection of the internal
circuit board and circuits thereon, or (c)
to exclude ‘‘the box 41 includes outer
walls that are made of metal material or
rigid plastic material and assembled
together by means of screws (not
shown),’’ do the prior art materials
disclose the limitations identified in (a),
(b), and (c)?
11. If the Commission were to
construe the claim term ‘‘body’’ to
exclude the switching circuit, do the
prior art materials disclose cables that
extend from the ‘‘body’’ as required by
claim 1 of the ‘112 patent?
12. Under your proposed claim
construction of the term ‘‘body,’’ do
ATEN’s products meet this limitation?
13. If the Commission were to
construe the claim term ‘‘body’’ (a) to
require an integrally injection-molded
plastic enclosure, (b) to require an
enclosure that provides good weatherresistance, impact-resistance, and
absolute protection of the internal
circuit board and circuits thereon, or (c)
to exclude ‘‘the box 41 includes outer
walls that are made of metal material or
rigid plastic material and assembled
together by means of screws (not
shown),’’ do ATEN’s products meet the
limitations identified in (a), (b), and (c)?
14. If the Commission were to
construe the claim term ‘‘body’’ to
exclude the switching circuit, do
ATEN’s products’’ cables extend from
the body as required by claim 1 of the
‘112 patent?
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 the respondent 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
E:\FR\FM\31DEN1.SGM
31DEN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 249 / Monday, December 31, 2007 / Notices
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 U.S. Trade
Representative, as delegated by the
President, has 60 days to approve or
disapprove the Commission’s action.
See Presidential Memorandum of July
21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005).
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 if a remedy is
ordered.
Written Submissions: The parties to
the investigation are requested to file
written submissions on the issues
identified in this notice. 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
recommended determination by the ALJ
on remedy and bonding. Complainants
and the Commission investigative
attorney are also requested to submit
proposed remedial orders for the
Commission’s consideration.
Complainants are also requested to state
the dates that the patents expire and the
HTSUS numbers under which the
accused products are imported. The
written submissions and proposed
remedial orders must be filed no later
than close of business on Tuesday,
January 8, 2008. Reply submissions
must be filed no later than the close of
business on Tuesday, January 15, 2008.
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 to the Commission
in confidence must request confidential
treatment unless the information has
already been granted such treatment
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:08 Dec 28, 2007
Jkt 214001
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 19 CFR 210.6. 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
sections 210.42–46 and 210.50 of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 210.42–46 and
210.50).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: December 21, 2007.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E7–25279 Filed 12–28–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Inv. No. 337–TA–624]
In the Matter of Certain Systems for
Detecting and Removing Viruses or
Worms, Components Thereof, and
Products Containing Same; Notice of
Investigation
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Institution of investigation
pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a
complaint was filed with the U.S.
International Trade Commission on
November 21, 2007, under section 337
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended,
19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Trend
Micro Incorporated of Cupertino,
California. The complaint 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 systems for detecting and
removing viruses or worms, components
thereof, and products containing same
by reason of infringement of certain
claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,623,600. The
complaint further alleges that an
industry in the United States exists as
required by subsection (a)(2) of section
337.
The complainant requests that the
Commission institute an investigation
and, after the investigation, issue an
exclusion order and cease and desist
orders.
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
74329
The complaint except for
any confidential information contained
therein, is 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: Rett
Snotherly, Esq., Office of Unfair Import
Investigations, U.S. International Trade
Commission, telephone (202) 205–2599.
ADDRESSES:
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
(2007).
Scope of Investigation: Having
considered the complaint, the U.S.
International Trade Commission, on
December 21, 2007, 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 systems for
detecting and removing viruses or
worms, components thereof, or products
containing same by reason of
infringement of one or more of claims 2
and 4–22 of U.S. Patent No. 5,623,600,
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—Trend Micro
Incorporated, 10101 North De Anza
Boulevard, Cupertino, California 95014.
(b) The respondents are the following
entities alleged to be in violation of
section 337, and are the parties upon
which the complaint is to be served:
E:\FR\FM\31DEN1.SGM
31DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 249 (Monday, December 31, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74327-74329]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-25279]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-589]
In the Matter of Certain Switches and Products Containing Same;
Notice of Commission Determination To Review a Final Determination on
Violation of Section 337; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions on
the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review a portion of the final initial
determination (``ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law judge
(``ALJ'') on November 7, 2007, regarding whether there is a violation
of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the above-
captioned investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Walters, Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-5468. 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 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. 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: This investigation was instituted on
December 7, 2006, based on a complaint filed by ATEN International Co.,
Ltd. of Taipei, Taiwan, and ATEN Technology, Inc. of Irvine, California
(collectively, ``ATEN''). The complaint alleged violations of section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. section 1337) in the
importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the
sale within the United States after importation of certain switches and
products containing the same by reason of infringement of various
claims of United States Patent No. 7,035,112. The
[[Page 74328]]
complaint named six respondents: Belkin International, Inc., Belkin,
Inc. (collectively, ``Belkin''), Emine Technology Co., Ltd.
(``Emine''), RATOC Systems, Inc., RATOC Systems International, Inc.
(collectively, ``RATOC''), and JustCom Tech, Inc. (``JustCom''). The
ALJ issued an order terminating RATOC and JustCom based on settlement
agreements, including a consent order, which the Commission has
previously determined to review.
On November 7, 2007, the ALJ issued his final ID, and on November
21, 2007, he issued his recommended determination on remedy and
bonding. In his ID, the ALJ found that Belkin's and Emine's accused
products do not infringe asserted claims 1 and 12-21. In addition, the
ALJ found that the claims are not invalid for anticipation or
obviousness. The ALJ also found that the claims are not invalid for
lack of written description support and that the patent is not
unenforceable for inequitable conduct. Further, the ALJ found that
there was no domestic industry based on the asserted patent. ATEN,
Belkin, Emine, and the Commission investigative attorney each filed
petitions for review of the ALJ's ID and responses to the petitions.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the
ALJ's final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto,
the Commission has determined (1) to review the ALJ's claim
construction of the terms ``body,'' ``fixedly attached,'' and
``integrated into,'' and (2) to review the ALJ's determinations on
infringement, anticipation, obviousness, and domestic industry, but (3)
not to review the ALJ's claim construction of the terms ``connector
plugs,'' ``connector ports,'' ``cable,'' or ``molded attachment
element,'' and (4) not to review the ALJ's determinations on the level
of skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art, written description,
and inequitable conduct. With respect to the claim constructions the
Commission has determined not to review, the Commission understands the
ALJ to have adopted the reasoning of the party whose claim construction
he adopted.
The parties should brief their positions on the issues on review
with reference to the applicable law and the evidentiary record. In
connection with its review, the Commission is particularly interested
in responses to the following questions:
1. How should the claim term ``body'' be construed? Please cite
claim language, specification language, prosecution history, and any
relevant extrinsic evidence to support your position. In addressing the
claim language, please comment on whether one of ordinary skill in the
art would understand that claim 1 indicates that the body is an
enclosure designed to contain a switching circuit and to have a
plurality of cables fixedly attached to and extending from it.
2. Does the specification limit the term ``body'' to an integrally
injection-molded plastic enclosure and/or to an enclosure that provides
good weather-resistance, impact-resistance, and absolute protection of
the internal circuit board and circuits thereon? Please cite cases
addressing whether similar language can be or has been used to limit a
claim term.
3. Does the specification distinguish the prior art through its
statement that ``the box 41 includes outer walls that are made of metal
material or rigid plastic material and assembled together by means of
screws (not shown)'' in a way that limits the claims? `112 patent, col.
1, ll. 23-25. Please cite cases addressing whether similar language can
be or has been used to distinguish prior art.
4. If the Commission arrives at a claim construction not asserted
by the parties or adopts the ALJ's claim construction, should the
Commission remand the investigation to the ALJ to develop the record
according to the selected claim construction?
5. Under your proposed claim construction of the claim term
``body,'' do the accused products meet this limitation?
6. If the Commission were to construe the claim term ``body'' (a)
to require an integrally injection-molded plastic enclosure, (b) to
require an enclosure that provides good weather-resistance, impact-
resistance, and absolute protection of the internal circuit board and
circuits thereon, or (c) to exclude ``the box 41 includes outer walls
that are made of metal material or rigid plastic material and assembled
together by means of screws (not shown),'' do the accused products meet
the limitations identified in (a), (b), and (c)?
7. If the Commission were to construe the claim term ``body'' to
exclude the switching circuit, do the accused products'' cables extend
from the body as required by claim 1 of the `112 patent?
8. Do Emine's products have a plurality of cables?
9. Under your proposed claim construction of the claim term
``body,'' is this limitation disclosed by the prior art?
10. If the Commission were to construe the claim term ``body'' (a)
to require an integrally injection-molded plastic enclosure, (b) to
require an enclosure that provides good weather-resistance, impact-
resistance, and absolute protection of the internal circuit board and
circuits thereon, or (c) to exclude ``the box 41 includes outer walls
that are made of metal material or rigid plastic material and assembled
together by means of screws (not shown),'' do the prior art materials
disclose the limitations identified in (a), (b), and (c)?
11. If the Commission were to construe the claim term ``body'' to
exclude the switching circuit, do the prior art materials disclose
cables that extend from the ``body'' as required by claim 1 of the `112
patent?
12. Under your proposed claim construction of the term ``body,'' do
ATEN's products meet this limitation?
13. If the Commission were to construe the claim term ``body'' (a)
to require an integrally injection-molded plastic enclosure, (b) to
require an enclosure that provides good weather-resistance, impact-
resistance, and absolute protection of the internal circuit board and
circuits thereon, or (c) to exclude ``the box 41 includes outer walls
that are made of metal material or rigid plastic material and assembled
together by means of screws (not shown),'' do ATEN's products meet the
limitations identified in (a), (b), and (c)?
14. If the Commission were to construe the claim term ``body'' to
exclude the switching circuit, do ATEN's products'' cables extend from
the body as required by claim 1 of the `112 patent?
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 the
respondent 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
[[Page 74329]]
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 U.S. Trade
Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve
or disapprove the Commission's action. See Presidential Memorandum of
July 21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). 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 if a remedy is ordered.
Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation are requested
to file written submissions on the issues identified in this notice.
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 recommended determination by the ALJ on
remedy and bonding. Complainants and the Commission investigative
attorney are also requested to submit proposed remedial orders for the
Commission's consideration. Complainants are also requested to state
the dates that the patents expire and the HTSUS numbers under which the
accused products are imported. The written submissions and proposed
remedial orders must be filed no later than close of business on
Tuesday, January 8, 2008. Reply submissions must be filed no later than
the close of business on Tuesday, January 15, 2008. 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
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 19 CFR 210.6. 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 sections 210.42-46 and 210.50 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42-46 and 210.50).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: December 21, 2007.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E7-25279 Filed 12-28-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
