In the Matter of Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Determination To Review in Part a Final Determination on Violation of Section 337; Schedule for Briefing on the Issues on Review and on Remedy, Public Interest, and Bonding; Denial of Motion for Leave To File a Reply, 75768-75770 [E8-29454]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
75768
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 240 / Friday, December 12, 2008 / Notices
Secretary, in consultation with the
Governor.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Diane Buzzard, CALFED Program
Manager, Bureau of Reclamation, 2800
Cottage Way, Sacramento, California
95821–1898, telephone 916–978–5525.
The certification of Charter renewal is
published below:
Certification
I hereby certify that Charter renewal
of the California Bay-Delta Public
Advisory Committee is in the public
interest in connection with the
performance of duties imposed on the
Department of the Interior.
Dirk Kempthorne,
Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. E8–29267 Filed 12–11–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–MN–M
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–615]
In the Matter of Certain Ground Fault
Circuit Interrupters and Products
Containing Same; Notice of
Commission Determination To Review
in Part a Final Determination on
Violation of Section 337; Schedule for
Briefing on the Issues on Review and
on Remedy, Public Interest, and
Bonding; Denial of Motion for Leave To
File a Reply
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review
in part the final initial determination
(‘‘ID’’) issued by the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) in the
above-captioned investigation finding a
violation of 19 U.S.C. 1337 (‘‘section
337’’) in the importation into the United
States, the sale for importation, or the
sale within the United States after
importation of certain ground fault
circuit interrupters and products
containing same by reason of
infringement of one or more of claims 1,
7, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 5,594,398
(‘‘the ‘398 patent’’); claims 14, 18, and
30 of U.S. Patent No. 7,283,340 (‘‘the
‘340 patent’’); claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.
7,212,386 (‘‘the ‘386 patent’’); claims 1
and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 7,164,564
(‘‘the ‘564 patent’’); claim 1 of U.S.
Patent No. 7,256,973 (‘‘the ‘973 patent’’);
and claim 52 of U.S. Patent No.
7,154,718 (‘‘the ‘718 patent’’).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:56 Dec 11, 2008
Jkt 217001
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul
M. Bartkowski, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
708–5432. 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
September 18, 2007, based on a
complaint filed by Pass & Seymour, Inc.
(‘‘P&S’’) of Syracuse, New York. The
complaint, as supplemented, alleged
violations of section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the
importation into the United States, the
sale for importation, and the sale within
the United States after importation of
certain ground fault circuit interrupters
and products containing the same by
reason of infringement of certain claims
of certain United States patents. The
complaint named 15 respondents:
General Protecht Group, Inc. (‘‘GPG’’) of
Zhejiang, China; General Protecht Group
U.S., Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia; Shanghai
ELE Manufacturing Corporation (‘‘ELE’’)
of Shanghai, China; Shanghai Meihao
Electric, Inc. (‘‘Meihao’’) of Shanghai,
China; Wenzhou Trimone Company
(‘‘Trimone’’) of Zhejiang, China;
Cheetah USA Corp. (‘‘Cheetah’’) of
Sandy, Utah; GX Electric (‘‘GX’’) of
Pompano Beach, Florida; Nicor Inc.
(‘‘Nicor’’) of Albuquerque, New Mexico;
Orbit Industries, Inc. (‘‘Orbit’’) of Los
Angeles, California; The Designer’s Edge
(‘‘TDE’’) of Bellevue, Washington;
Universal Security Instruments, Inc.
(‘‘USI’’) of Owings Mills, Maryland;
Colacino Electric Supply, Inc.
(‘‘Colacino’’) of Newark, New York;
Ingram Products, Inc. (‘‘Ingram’’) of
Jacksonville, Florida; Lunar Industrial &
Electrical, Inc. (‘‘Lunar’’) of Miami,
Florida; and Quality Distributing, LLC.
(‘‘Quality’’) of Hillsboro, Oregon.
After institution of the investigation,
by separate initial determinations, each
of which the Commission determined
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
not to review, respondents Lunar, GX,
Ingram, Quality, General Protecht Group
U.S., Inc., and USI were terminated
from the investigation; the ‘340 patent
was added to the investigation; P&S’s
motion for summary determination that
it satisfied the economic prong of the
domestic industry requirement was
granted with respect to all asserted
patents; and the investigation was
terminated with respect to all claims
except claims 1, 7, and 8 of the ‘398
patent, claim 1 of the ‘386 patent, claims
14, 18, and 30 of the ‘340 patent, claims
1 and 15 of the ‘564 patent; claims 1, 2,
5, and 6 of the ‘973 patent; and claim
52 of the ‘718 patent.
On September 24, 2008, the ALJ
issued his final ID, finding a violation
with respect to each patent by each
remaining respondent. Respondents ELE
(in a joint brief with its respondent
customers Cheetah, Colacino, Orbit, and
Nicor), Meihao (in a joint brief with its
respondent customer TDE), GPG, and
Trimone each filed a petition for review
of the ID. P&S and the Commission
investigative attorney (‘‘IA’’) each filed
a response to the respondents’ petitions
for review. Meihao filed a motion for
leave to file a reply to P&S’s response,
along with a proposed reply submission.
Having examined the record of this
investigation, including the ALJ’s final
ID and the submissions of the parties,
the Commission has determined to deny
Meihao’s motion for leave to file a reply,
and has determined to review the final
ID in part. Specifically, the Commission
has determined to review (1) The ALJ’s
construction of ‘‘unitary, electrically
conducting member carrying a pair of
spaced electrical contacts’’ in the
asserted claims of the ‘398 patent and
related issues of infringement, domestic
industry, and validity; (2) the ALJ’s
construction of ‘‘mounting means’’ in
the asserted claims of the ‘398 patent
and related issues of infringement,
domestic industry, and validity; (3) the
ALJ’s construction of ‘‘latching means’’
in the ‘398 patent and related issues of
infringement, domestic industry, and
validity; (4) the ALJ’s conclusion that
the asserted claims of the ‘340 patent are
not invalid; (5) the ALJ’s construction of
‘‘an actuator assembly configured to
provide an actuator signal in response to
the fault detection or the wiring state
detection signal’’ in claim 1 of the ‘386
patent and related issues of
infringement, domestic industry, and
validity; (6) the ALJ’s construction of
‘‘the circuit interrupter being configured
to disconnect the first conductive path
from the second conductive path in
response to the actuator signal in the
reset state’’ in claim 1 of the ‘386 patent
and related issues of infringement,
E:\FR\FM\12DEN1.SGM
12DEN1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 240 / Friday, December 12, 2008 / Notices
domestic industry, and validity; (7) the
ALJ’s determination that claim 1 of the
‘386 patent is not invalid; (8) the ALJ’s
determination of infringement of claim
1 of the ‘973 patent regarding ELE’s
2006 GFCIs; and (9) the ALJ’s
construction of ‘‘cantilever’’ in claim 52
of the ‘718 patent and related issues of
infringement, domestic industry, and
validity. The Commission requests
briefing based on the evidentiary record
on these topics. The Commission is
particularly interested in responses to
the following questions:
Regarding the ‘398 patent:
(1) How would modifying the
construction to more clearly provide
meaning to the terms ‘‘unitary’’ and
‘‘carrying’’ affect the determinations of
infringement, validity, and domestic
industry, if at all?
(2) Please specifically address the
statement made in reference to the
Doyle and Van Haaren patents in CX–
9, PS–ITC 336699, referenced in P&S’s
response to the petitions for review, in
your response to question (1).
(3) Is ‘‘mounting’’ a required function
of the claimed ‘‘mounting means’’? If so,
what structure from the ‘398 patent
performs the function of ‘‘mounting’’?
(4) How would modifying the
structure identified as corresponding to
the ‘‘latching means’’ to include the
‘‘latch member’’ disclosed in the ‘398
patent affect the determinations of
infringement, validity, and domestic
industry?
(5) Does the structure in Trimone’s
2006 GFCIs accused of meeting the
‘‘mounting means’’ limitation permit
movement to a ‘‘second position,
wherein both of said pair of contacts are
in spaced, circuit-breaking relation to
said pair of terminals’’?
Regarding the ‘340 patent:
(1) Does the DiSalvo patent’s
statement that ‘‘[c]losing the reset
contacts activates the operation of the
circuit by, for example simulating a
ground fault * * *’’ constitute a
disclosure of ‘‘a predetermined signal
not simulating a fault condition’’? If so,
are the asserted claims of the ‘340 patent
obvious over the DiSalvo patent?
(2) Does the Neiger patent’s disclosure
of a circuit that detects a miswire
condition constitute a disclosure of ‘‘at
least one detection circuit * * *
configured to generate a predetermined
signal in response to detecting a proper
wiring condition,’’ under the ALJ’s
construction of ‘‘detection’’? If so, are
the asserted claims of the ‘340 patent
obvious over the Neiger patent?
(3) Please address any remaining
arguments, that were previously raised,
in favor of obviousness/nonobviousness
of the asserted claims of the ‘340 patent
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:56 Dec 11, 2008
Jkt 217001
that were not discussed in response to
questions (1) and (2).
Regarding the ‘386 Patent:
(1) What effect would a construction
that recognizes that the ‘‘configured to
disconnect’’ limitation requires the
device to trip in response to an actuator
signal—whether that actuator signal is
generated in response to either a fault
detection signal or a wiring state
detection signal—in the reset state have
on infringement, domestic industry, and
validity? Please provide record evidence
supporting your conclusions under such
a construction.
(2) Please provide specific limitations
of claim 1 of the ‘386 patent that are not
disclosed in the DiSalvo patent, and
supporting evidentiary citations.
Regarding the ‘973 patent:
In what way is the ‘‘user-accessible
housing feature’’ in ELE’s device, that is,
the hole, in communication with the
switch element?
Regarding the ‘718 patent:
What effect would modifying the
ALJ’s construction of ‘‘cantilever’’ to
adopt Meihao’s proposed construction
have on the determinations of
infringement, validity, and domestic
industry regarding the ‘718 patent?
Furthermore, 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
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
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
75769
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 under
review. The submissions should be
concise and thoroughly referenced to
the record in this investigation,
including references to exhibits and
testimony. Additionally, 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. Further,
regarding the potential issuance of a
general exclusion order, the
Commission requests briefing specific to
whether the statutory criteria set forth in
section 337(d)(2) are met in this
investigation. 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
December 22, 2008. Reply submissions
must be filed no later than the close of
business on December 31, 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
E:\FR\FM\12DEN1.SGM
12DEN1
75770
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 240 / Friday, December 12, 2008 / Notices
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 (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.
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 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
section 210.42 of the Commission’s
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.42).
Authority: This investigation is being
terminated under authority of title VII of the
Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published
pursuant to section 207.40 of the
Commission’s rules (19 CFR 207.40).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: December 8, 2008.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E8–29454 Filed 12–11–08; 8:45 am]
By order of the Commission.
Issued: December 8, 2008.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E8–29452 Filed 12–11–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 731–TA–1150 (Final)]
[Investigations Nos. 701–TA–455 and 731–
TA–1149 (Final)]
Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel
Line Pipe From Korea
AGENCY: United States International
Trade Commission.
ACTION: Termination of investigation.
SUMMARY: On November 25, 2008, the
Commission received a letter from the
Department of Commerce stating that,
having received a letter from petitioners
in the subject investigation (Maverick
Tube Corp., United States Steel Corp.,
Tex-Tube Corp., and the United Steel,
Paper and Forestry, Rubber,
Manufacturing, Energy, Allied
Industrial and Service Workers
International Union, AFL–CIO–CLC)
withdrawing its petition, Commerce was
terminating its antidumping
investigation on circular welded carbon
quality steel line pipe from Korea.
Accordingly, pursuant to section
207.40(a) of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
207.40(a)), the subject investigation is
terminated.
DATES:
Effective Date: November 25,
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
2008.
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 individuals are advised that
information on this matter can be
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:56 Dec 11, 2008
Jkt 217001
Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel
Line Pipe From China
AGENCY: United States International
Trade Commission.
ACTION: Additional scheduling date for
the subject investigations.
Effective Date: December 5, 2008.
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 investigations may be viewed on
the Commission’s electronic docket
(EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Effective
September 9, 2008, the Commission
established a schedule for the conduct
of the final phase of the subject
investigations (73 FR 54618, September
22, 2008). Although the Department of
Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) had not yet
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
made its preliminary less than fair value
(‘‘LTFV’’) determination, the
Commission, for purposes of efficiency,
included the antidumping duty
investigation in the schedule for the
countervailing duty investigation. On
November 6, 2008, Commerce issued its
preliminary antidumping duty
determination and postponed its final
antidumping duty determination (73 FR
66012). Accordingly, the Commission is
issuing the additional scheduling date
with respect to the antidumping duty
investigation as follows: A
supplemental brief addressing only
Commerce’s final antidumping duty
determination is due on March 31, 2009.
The brief may not exceed five (5) pages
in length.
For further information concerning
these investigations see the
Commission’s notice cited above and
the Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure, part 201, subparts A through
E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207,
subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
Authority: These investigations are being
conducted under authority of title VII of the
Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published
pursuant to section 207.21 of the
Commission’s rules.
By order of the Commission.
Issued: December 8, 2008.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E8–29453 Filed 12–11–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 332–288]
Ethyl Alcohol for Fuel Use:
Determination of the Base Quantity of
Imports
AGENCY: United States International
Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice of determination.
SUMMARY: Section 423(c) of the Tax
Reform Act of 1986, as amended (19
U.S.C. 2703 note), requires the United
States International Trade Commission
to determine annually the amount
(expressed in gallons) that is equal to 7
percent of the U.S. domestic market for
fuel ethyl alcohol during the 12-month
period ending on the preceding
September 30. This determination is to
be used to establish the ‘‘base quantity’’
of imports of fuel ethyl alcohol with a
zero percent local feedstock requirement
that can be imported from U.S. insular
possessions or CBERA-beneficiary
countries. The base quantity to be used
by U.S. Customs and Border Protection
E:\FR\FM\12DEN1.SGM
12DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 240 (Friday, December 12, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75768-75770]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-29454]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-615]
In the Matter of Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters and
Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Determination To Review
in Part a Final Determination on Violation of Section 337; Schedule for
Briefing on the Issues on Review and on Remedy, Public Interest, and
Bonding; Denial of Motion for Leave To File a Reply
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review in part the final initial
determination (``ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law judge
(``ALJ'') in the above-captioned investigation finding a violation of
19 U.S.C. 1337 (``section 337'') in the importation into the United
States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States
after importation of certain ground fault circuit interrupters and
products containing same by reason of infringement of one or more of
claims 1, 7, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 5,594,398 (``the `398 patent'');
claims 14, 18, and 30 of U.S. Patent No. 7,283,340 (``the `340
patent''); claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7,212,386 (``the `386 patent'');
claims 1 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 7,164,564 (``the `564 patent'');
claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7,256,973 (``the `973 patent''); and claim
52 of U.S. Patent No. 7,154,718 (``the `718 patent'').
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul M. Bartkowski, Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-5432. 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
September 18, 2007, based on a complaint filed by Pass & Seymour, Inc.
(``P&S'') of Syracuse, New York. The complaint, as supplemented,
alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.
1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for
importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of
certain ground fault circuit interrupters and products containing the
same by reason of infringement of certain claims of certain United
States patents. The complaint named 15 respondents: General Protecht
Group, Inc. (``GPG'') of Zhejiang, China; General Protecht Group U.S.,
Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia; Shanghai ELE Manufacturing Corporation
(``ELE'') of Shanghai, China; Shanghai Meihao Electric, Inc.
(``Meihao'') of Shanghai, China; Wenzhou Trimone Company (``Trimone'')
of Zhejiang, China; Cheetah USA Corp. (``Cheetah'') of Sandy, Utah; GX
Electric (``GX'') of Pompano Beach, Florida; Nicor Inc. (``Nicor'') of
Albuquerque, New Mexico; Orbit Industries, Inc. (``Orbit'') of Los
Angeles, California; The Designer's Edge (``TDE'') of Bellevue,
Washington; Universal Security Instruments, Inc. (``USI'') of Owings
Mills, Maryland; Colacino Electric Supply, Inc. (``Colacino'') of
Newark, New York; Ingram Products, Inc. (``Ingram'') of Jacksonville,
Florida; Lunar Industrial & Electrical, Inc. (``Lunar'') of Miami,
Florida; and Quality Distributing, LLC. (``Quality'') of Hillsboro,
Oregon.
After institution of the investigation, by separate initial
determinations, each of which the Commission determined not to review,
respondents Lunar, GX, Ingram, Quality, General Protecht Group U.S.,
Inc., and USI were terminated from the investigation; the `340 patent
was added to the investigation; P&S's motion for summary determination
that it satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry
requirement was granted with respect to all asserted patents; and the
investigation was terminated with respect to all claims except claims
1, 7, and 8 of the `398 patent, claim 1 of the `386 patent, claims 14,
18, and 30 of the `340 patent, claims 1 and 15 of the `564 patent;
claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 of the `973 patent; and claim 52 of the `718
patent.
On September 24, 2008, the ALJ issued his final ID, finding a
violation with respect to each patent by each remaining respondent.
Respondents ELE (in a joint brief with its respondent customers
Cheetah, Colacino, Orbit, and Nicor), Meihao (in a joint brief with its
respondent customer TDE), GPG, and Trimone each filed a petition for
review of the ID. P&S and the Commission investigative attorney
(``IA'') each filed a response to the respondents' petitions for
review. Meihao filed a motion for leave to file a reply to P&S's
response, along with a proposed reply submission.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the
ALJ's final ID and the submissions of the parties, the Commission has
determined to deny Meihao's motion for leave to file a reply, and has
determined to review the final ID in part. Specifically, the Commission
has determined to review (1) The ALJ's construction of ``unitary,
electrically conducting member carrying a pair of spaced electrical
contacts'' in the asserted claims of the `398 patent and related issues
of infringement, domestic industry, and validity; (2) the ALJ's
construction of ``mounting means'' in the asserted claims of the `398
patent and related issues of infringement, domestic industry, and
validity; (3) the ALJ's construction of ``latching means'' in the `398
patent and related issues of infringement, domestic industry, and
validity; (4) the ALJ's conclusion that the asserted claims of the `340
patent are not invalid; (5) the ALJ's construction of ``an actuator
assembly configured to provide an actuator signal in response to the
fault detection or the wiring state detection signal'' in claim 1 of
the `386 patent and related issues of infringement, domestic industry,
and validity; (6) the ALJ's construction of ``the circuit interrupter
being configured to disconnect the first conductive path from the
second conductive path in response to the actuator signal in the reset
state'' in claim 1 of the `386 patent and related issues of
infringement,
[[Page 75769]]
domestic industry, and validity; (7) the ALJ's determination that claim
1 of the `386 patent is not invalid; (8) the ALJ's determination of
infringement of claim 1 of the `973 patent regarding ELE's 2006 GFCIs;
and (9) the ALJ's construction of ``cantilever'' in claim 52 of the
`718 patent and related issues of infringement, domestic industry, and
validity. The Commission requests briefing based on the evidentiary
record on these topics. The Commission is particularly interested in
responses to the following questions:
Regarding the `398 patent:
(1) How would modifying the construction to more clearly provide
meaning to the terms ``unitary'' and ``carrying'' affect the
determinations of infringement, validity, and domestic industry, if at
all?
(2) Please specifically address the statement made in reference to
the Doyle and Van Haaren patents in CX-9, PS-ITC 336699, referenced in
P&S's response to the petitions for review, in your response to
question (1).
(3) Is ``mounting'' a required function of the claimed ``mounting
means''? If so, what structure from the `398 patent performs the
function of ``mounting''?
(4) How would modifying the structure identified as corresponding
to the ``latching means'' to include the ``latch member'' disclosed in
the `398 patent affect the determinations of infringement, validity,
and domestic industry?
(5) Does the structure in Trimone's 2006 GFCIs accused of meeting
the ``mounting means'' limitation permit movement to a ``second
position, wherein both of said pair of contacts are in spaced, circuit-
breaking relation to said pair of terminals''?
Regarding the `340 patent:
(1) Does the DiSalvo patent's statement that ``[c]losing the reset
contacts activates the operation of the circuit by, for example
simulating a ground fault * * *'' constitute a disclosure of ``a
predetermined signal not simulating a fault condition''? If so, are the
asserted claims of the `340 patent obvious over the DiSalvo patent?
(2) Does the Neiger patent's disclosure of a circuit that detects a
miswire condition constitute a disclosure of ``at least one detection
circuit * * * configured to generate a predetermined signal in response
to detecting a proper wiring condition,'' under the ALJ's construction
of ``detection''? If so, are the asserted claims of the `340 patent
obvious over the Neiger patent?
(3) Please address any remaining arguments, that were previously
raised, in favor of obviousness/nonobviousness of the asserted claims
of the `340 patent that were not discussed in response to questions (1)
and (2).
Regarding the `386 Patent:
(1) What effect would a construction that recognizes that the
``configured to disconnect'' limitation requires the device to trip in
response to an actuator signal--whether that actuator signal is
generated in response to either a fault detection signal or a wiring
state detection signal--in the reset state have on infringement,
domestic industry, and validity? Please provide record evidence
supporting your conclusions under such a construction.
(2) Please provide specific limitations of claim 1 of the `386
patent that are not disclosed in the DiSalvo patent, and supporting
evidentiary citations.
Regarding the `973 patent:
In what way is the ``user-accessible housing feature'' in ELE's
device, that is, the hole, in communication with the switch element?
Regarding the `718 patent:
What effect would modifying the ALJ's construction of
``cantilever'' to adopt Meihao's proposed construction have on the
determinations of infringement, validity, and domestic industry
regarding the `718 patent?
Furthermore, 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 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 under review. The submissions
should be concise and thoroughly referenced to the record in this
investigation, including references to exhibits and testimony.
Additionally, 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. Further, regarding the potential
issuance of a general exclusion order, the Commission requests briefing
specific to whether the statutory criteria set forth in section
337(d)(2) are met in this investigation. 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 December 22, 2008. Reply submissions must be filed
no later than the close of business on December 31, 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
[[Page 75770]]
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 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 section 210.42 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
(19 CFR 210.42).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: December 8, 2008.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E8-29454 Filed 12-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
