In the Matter of Certain L-Lysine Feed Products, Their Methods of Production and Genetic Constructs for Production; Notice of Commission Determination (1) To Review and Not Take a Position on Certain Issues in the Final Initial Determination of the Administrative Law Judge and (2) Not To Review the Remainder of the Final Initial Determination; Termination of the Investigation, 57652-57653 [E8-23324]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
57652
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 193 / Friday, October 3, 2008 / Notices
be prepared to present proper
identification.
Authority: The General Counsel has
certified, pursuant to Commission Rule
201.39 (19 CFR 201.39) that a portion of the
Commission’s hearing in Lightweight
Thermal Paper from China and Germany,
Inv. Nos. 701–TA–451, 731–TA–1126–27
(Final), may be closed to the public to
prevent the disclosure of BPI.
By order of the Commission.
Issued: September 29, 2008.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E8–23323 Filed 10–2–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–574]
In the Matter of Certain Equipment for
Telecommunications or Data
Communications Networks, Including
Routers, Switches, and Hubs, and
Components Thereof; Notice of
Commission Determination Not To
Review an Initial Determination
Granting a Joint Motion To Terminate
the Investigation Based on a
Settlement Agreement
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined not to
review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’)
(Order No. 52) of the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’)
granting a joint motion for termination
of the above-captioned investigation
based on a settlement agreement.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
708–2310. 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
23:33 Oct 02, 2008
Jkt 217001
this matter can be obtained by
contacting the Commission’s TDD
terminal on (202) 205–1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Commission instituted this investigation
on June 16, 2006, based on a complaint
filed on May 15, 2006, by Telcordia
Technologies, Inc. (‘‘Telcordia’’) of
Piscataway, New Jersey. An amended
complaint was filed on June 5, 2006.
The complaint as 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 equipment for
telecommunications or data
communications networks, including
routers, switches, hubs, and
components thereof, by reason of
infringement of claims 1, 3, and 4 of
U.S. Patent No. 4,893,306 (‘‘the ‘306
patent’’); claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 11, and 33 of
U.S. Patent No. Re. 36,633 (‘‘the ‘633
patent’’); and claims 1, 2, 7, and 8 of
U.S. Patent No. 4,835,763 (‘‘the ‘763
patent’’). The amended complaint
named five respondents: Cisco Systems,
Inc. (‘‘Cisco’’) of San Jose, California;
Lucent Technologies, Inc. (‘‘Lucent’’) of
Murray Hill, New Jersey; Alcatel S.A. of
France and Alcatel USA, Inc. of Plano,
Texas (collectively ‘‘Alcatel’’); and
PMC-Sierra, Inc. (‘‘PMC-Sierra’’) of
Santa Clara, California. The complaint
further alleged that an industry in the
United States exists as required by
subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
On August 23, 2006, the Commission
issued notice of its determination not to
review an ID terminating the
investigation as to the ‘306 patent and
certain claims of the ‘633 patent. On
January 4, 2007, the Commission issued
notice of its determination not to review
an ID terminating the investigation as to
the ‘763 patent. On June 15, 2007, the
Commission issued notice of its
determination not to review an ID
terminating the investigation as to
respondents Alcatel and Lucent on the
basis of a settlement agreement. On
August 8, 2008, the Commission issued
notice of its determination not to review
an ID terminating the investigation as to
respondent PMC-Sierra. On September
17, 2008, the Commission issued notice
of its determination not to review an ID
granting Telecordia’s motion for
summary determination that respondent
Cisco is precluded from litigating
certain issues in view of a previous
judgment in a case involving the same
issues and the same parties in the U.S.
District Court for the District of
Delaware.
On August 29, 2008, Telecordia and
Cisco filed a joint motion for
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
termination of the investigation, based
on a settlement agreement. The ALJ
issued the subject ID on September 8,
2008, granting the joint motion. No
petitions for review of the ID were filed.
The Commission has determined not to
review the subject 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
sections 210.21(a)(2), (b), and 210.42(h)
of the Commission’s Rules of Practice
and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.21(a)(1), (b),
210.42(h).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: September 29, 2008.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E8–23320 Filed 10–2–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–571]
In the Matter of Certain L-Lysine Feed
Products, Their Methods of Production
and Genetic Constructs for
Production; Notice of Commission
Determination (1) To Review and Not
Take a Position on Certain Issues in
the Final Initial Determination of the
Administrative Law Judge and (2) Not
To Review the Remainder of the Final
Initial Determination; Termination of
the Investigation
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined (1) to
review and not take a position on
certain issues in the final initial
determination (‘‘ID’’) of the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) and (2)
not to review the remainder of the ID
finding no violation of section 337 of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19
U.S.C. 1337 (‘‘section 337’’). This action
terminates the investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James Worth, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–3065. 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,
E:\FR\FM\03OCN1.SGM
03OCN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 193 / Friday, October 3, 2008 / Notices
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: On May
31, 2006, the Commission instituted this
investigation based upon a complaint
filed on behalf of Ajinomoto Heartland
LLC (Chicago, Illinois) (‘‘Ajinomoto
Heartland’’). 71 FR 30958 (May 31,
2006). The complaint, as amended,
alleged violations of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19
U.S.C. 1337 (‘‘section 337’’), in the
importation into the United States, the
sale for importation, and the sale within
the United States after importation of
certain L-lysine feed products and
genetic constructs for production
thereof by reason of infringement of
claims 13, 15–19, and 21–22 of U.S.
Patent No. 5,827,698 (‘‘the ‘698 patent’’)
and claims 1, 2, 15, and 22 of U.S.
Patent No. 6,040, 160 (‘‘the ‘160
patent’’).
The complaint named as respondents
Global Bio-Chem Technology, Group
Company Ltd. (Admiralty, Hong Kong),
Changchun Dacheng Bio-Chem
Engineering Development Co., Ltd.,
(Jilin Province, China), Changchun
Baocheng Bio Development Co., Ltd.
(Jilin Province, China), Changchun Dahe
Bio Technology Development Co., Ltd.
(Jilin Province, China), Bio-Chem
Technology (HK) Ltd. (Admiralty, Hong
Kong) (collectively, ‘‘GBT’’). 71 FR
30958. On June 29, 2006, Ajinomoto
Heartland further amended the
complaint and notice of institution by
adding its parent company, Ajinomoto,
Inc. (Tokyo, Japan) as a complainant. 71
FR 43209 (July 31, 2006).
On October 15, 2007, the Commission
determined not to review an order of the
ALJ, granting Ajinomoto’s motion to
withdraw claims 1, 2, and 22 of the ‘160
patent and claims 13, 16–19, and 21–22
of the ‘698 patent.
On July 31, 2008, the ALJ issued his
final ID, in which he found no violation
of section 337 with regard to either the
’160 or the ’698 patents because he
found that the asserted claims of both
patents were invalid for failure to satisfy
the best mode requirement of 35 U.S.C.
112 ¶ 1 on two separate grounds and
that both patents were unenforceable
because of inequitable conduct. He
found infringement of the asserted
VerDate Aug<31>2005
23:33 Oct 02, 2008
Jkt 217001
claims through importation of lysine
made using the ‘‘old’’ strain of E. coli by
GBT, but not the ‘‘new’’ strain, based
upon the stipulation of the parties. The
ALJ also found the existence of a
domestic industry for the asserted
claims, and found that the asserted
claims were not invalid for obviousness
or obviousness-type double patenting,
and that the asserted patents were not
unenforceable by reason of unclean
hands.
On August 19, 2008, Ajinomoto
petitioned for review of the ALJ’s final
ID regarding invalidity of the asserted
claims for failure to meet the best mode
requirement and unenforceability of the
patents because of inequitable conduct.
Neither GBT nor the Commission
investigative attorney petitioned for
review of any part of the ID.
Having examined the relevant
portions of the record in this
investigation, including the final ID, the
petition for review, and the responses
thereto, the Commission has determined
(1) to review and take no position on (a)
the ALJ’s finding that claim 15 of the
‘160 patent is invalid for failure to meet
the best mode requirement to the extent
that finding is based on alleged
fictitious data and (b) the ALJ’s finding
that the ‘160 patent is unenforceable for
inequitable conduct and (2) not to
review the remainder of the ID. Thus,
the investigation is terminated with a
finding of no violation of section 337.
This action is taken under the
authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337),
and in sections 210.42–.46 of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 210.42–.46).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: September 29, 2008.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E8–23324 Filed 10–2–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
57653
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–571]
In the Matter of Certain L-Lysine Feed
Products, Their Methods of Production
and Genetic Constructs for
Production; Notice of Commission
Determination (1) To Review and Not
Take a Position on Certain Issues in
the Final Initial Determination of the
Administrative Law Judge and (2) Not
To Review the Remainder of the Final
Initial Determination; Termination of
the Investigation
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined (1) to
review and not take a position on
certain issues in the final initial
determination (‘‘ID’’) of the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) and (2)
not to review the remainder of the ID
finding no violation of section 337 of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19
U.S.C. 1337 (‘‘section 337’’). This action
terminates the investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James Worth, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–3065. 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: On May
31, 2006, the Commission instituted this
investigation based upon a complaint
filed on behalf of Ajinomoto Heartland
LLC (Chicago, Illinois) (‘‘Ajinomoto
Heartland’’). 71 FR 30958 (May 31,
2006). The complaint, as amended,
alleged violations of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19
U.S.C. 1337 (‘‘section 337’’), in the
importation into the United States, the
E:\FR\FM\03OCN1.SGM
03OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 193 (Friday, October 3, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57652-57653]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23324]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-571]
In the Matter of Certain L-Lysine Feed Products, Their Methods of
Production and Genetic Constructs for Production; Notice of Commission
Determination (1) To Review and Not Take a Position on Certain Issues
in the Final Initial Determination of the Administrative Law Judge and
(2) Not To Review the Remainder of the Final Initial Determination;
Termination of the Investigation
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined (1) to review and not take a position on
certain issues in the final initial determination (``ID'') of the
presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') and (2) not to review the
remainder of the ID finding no violation of section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (``section 337''). This action
terminates the investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Worth, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3065. 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,
[[Page 57653]]
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: On May 31, 2006, the Commission instituted
this investigation based upon a complaint filed on behalf of Ajinomoto
Heartland LLC (Chicago, Illinois) (``Ajinomoto Heartland''). 71 FR
30958 (May 31, 2006). The complaint, as amended, alleged violations of
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337
(``section 337''), in the importation into the United States, the sale
for importation, and the sale within the United States after
importation of certain L-lysine feed products and genetic constructs
for production thereof by reason of infringement of claims 13, 15-19,
and 21-22 of U.S. Patent No. 5,827,698 (``the `698 patent'') and claims
1, 2, 15, and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 6,040, 160 (``the `160 patent'').
The complaint named as respondents Global Bio-Chem Technology,
Group Company Ltd. (Admiralty, Hong Kong), Changchun Dacheng Bio-Chem
Engineering Development Co., Ltd., (Jilin Province, China), Changchun
Baocheng Bio Development Co., Ltd. (Jilin Province, China), Changchun
Dahe Bio Technology Development Co., Ltd. (Jilin Province, China), Bio-
Chem Technology (HK) Ltd. (Admiralty, Hong Kong) (collectively,
``GBT''). 71 FR 30958. On June 29, 2006, Ajinomoto Heartland further
amended the complaint and notice of institution by adding its parent
company, Ajinomoto, Inc. (Tokyo, Japan) as a complainant. 71 FR 43209
(July 31, 2006).
On October 15, 2007, the Commission determined not to review an
order of the ALJ, granting Ajinomoto's motion to withdraw claims 1, 2,
and 22 of the `160 patent and claims 13, 16-19, and 21-22 of the `698
patent.
On July 31, 2008, the ALJ issued his final ID, in which he found no
violation of section 337 with regard to either the '160 or the '698
patents because he found that the asserted claims of both patents were
invalid for failure to satisfy the best mode requirement of 35 U.S.C.
112 ] 1 on two separate grounds and that both patents were
unenforceable because of inequitable conduct. He found infringement of
the asserted claims through importation of lysine made using the
``old'' strain of E. coli by GBT, but not the ``new'' strain, based
upon the stipulation of the parties. The ALJ also found the existence
of a domestic industry for the asserted claims, and found that the
asserted claims were not invalid for obviousness or obviousness-type
double patenting, and that the asserted patents were not unenforceable
by reason of unclean hands.
On August 19, 2008, Ajinomoto petitioned for review of the ALJ's
final ID regarding invalidity of the asserted claims for failure to
meet the best mode requirement and unenforceability of the patents
because of inequitable conduct. Neither GBT nor the Commission
investigative attorney petitioned for review of any part of the ID.
Having examined the relevant portions of the record in this
investigation, including the final ID, the petition for review, and the
responses thereto, the Commission has determined (1) to review and take
no position on (a) the ALJ's finding that claim 15 of the `160 patent
is invalid for failure to meet the best mode requirement to the extent
that finding is based on alleged fictitious data and (b) the ALJ's
finding that the `160 patent is unenforceable for inequitable conduct
and (2) not to review the remainder of the ID. Thus, the investigation
is terminated with a finding of no violation of section 337.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in sections
210.42-.46 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.42-.46).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: September 29, 2008.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E8-23324 Filed 10-2-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
