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, 57653-57654 [E8-23377]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
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
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
57654
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 193 / Friday, October 3, 2008 / Notices
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
23:33 Oct 02, 2008
Jkt 217001
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. E8–23377 Filed 10–2–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
the scheduling of the final phase of the
Commission’s investigation and of a
public hearing to be held in connection
therewith was given by posting copies
of the notice in the Office of the
Secretary, U.S. International Trade
Commission, Washington, DC, and by
publishing the notice in the Federal
Register of April 4, 2008 (73 FR 18560).
The hearing was held in Washington,
DC, on July 31, 2008, and all persons
who requested the opportunity were
permitted to appear in person or by
counsel.
The Commission transmitted its
determination in this investigation to
the Secretary of Commerce on
September 29, 2008. The views of the
Commission are contained in USITC
Publication 4034 (September 2008),
entitled Steel Wire Garment Hangers
from China: Investigation No. 731–TA–
1123 (Final).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: September 29, 2008.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E8–23322 Filed 10–2–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
[Investigation No. 731–TA–1123 (Final)]
Steel Wire Garment Hangers From
China Determination
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
On the basis of the record 1 developed
in the subject investigation, the United
States International Trade Commission
(Commission) determines, pursuant to
section 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930
(19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)) (the Act), that an
industry in the United States is
materially injured by reason of imports
from China of steel wire garment
hangers, provided for in subheading
7326.20.00 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States, that have
been found by the Department of
Commerce (Commerce) to be sold in the
United States at less than fair value
(LTFV).
Notice of Lodging of a Consent Decree
Under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
Background
The Commission instituted this
investigation effective July 31, 2007,
following receipt of a petition filed with
the Commission and Commerce by M&B
Metal Products Company, Inc., Leeds,
AL. The final phase of the investigation
was scheduled by the Commission
following notification of a preliminary
determination by Commerce that
imports of steel wire garment hangers
from China were being sold at LTFV
within the meaning of section 733(b) of
the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of
1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19
CFR 207.2(f)).
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Notice is hereby given that on
September 5, 2008, a proposed Consent
Decree in the case of United States and
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental
Protection v. Temrac Company, Inc.,
Docket No. 08–4292, was lodged with
the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
In this proceeding, the United States
filed a claim pursuant to Section 107 of
the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 9607, for
reimbursement of costs incurred in
connection with response actions taken
at the Crossley Farms Superfund Site,
located in Huffs Church, Hereford
Township, Berks County, Pennsylvania.
Pursuant to the Consent Decree, the
settling Defendant agrees to pay
$1,916,448.77 in reimbursement of costs
previously incurred by the United
States, and $212,938.93 in
reimbursement of costs previously
incurred by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.
The Department of Justice will
receive, for a period of thirty (30) days
from the date of this publication,
E:\FR\FM\03OCN1.SGM
03OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 193 (Friday, October 3, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57653-57654]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23377]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 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
[[Page 57654]]
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. E8-23377 Filed 10-2-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
