In the Matter of Certain Refrigerators and Components Thereof; Notice of Commission Decision To Review in Its Entirety; A Final Initial Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337, 20345-20346 [E9-9997]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 83 / Friday, May 1, 2009 / Notices
definitions of the Domestic Like Product
and Domestic Industry; if you disagree
with either or both of these definitions,
please explain why and provide
alternative definitions.
Authority: This review is being conducted
under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act
of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to
section 207.61 of the Commission’s rules.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
Issued: April 24, 2009.
William R. Bishop,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E9–9770 Filed 4–30–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE: P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–632]
In the Matter of Certain Refrigerators
and Components Thereof; Notice of
Commission Decision To Review in Its
Entirety; A Final Initial Determination
Finding No Violation of Section 337
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review
the presiding administrative law judge’s
(‘‘ALJ’’) final initial determination
(‘‘ID’’) finding no violation of Section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the
above-captioned investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean
Jackson Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–3104. Copies of the ALJ’s IDs and
all other 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.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:15 Apr 30, 2009
Jkt 217001
On
February 21, 2008, the Commission
voted to institute this investigation,
based on a complaint filed by Whirlpool
Patents Company of St. Joseph,
Michigan; Whirlpool Manufacturing
Corporation of St. Joseph, Michigan;
Whirlpool Corporation of Benton
Harbor, Michigan, and Maytag
Corporation of Benton Harbor, Michigan
(collectively, ‘‘Whirlpool’’). The
complaint, as supplemented, alleges
violations of section 337 based upon the
importation into the United States, the
sale for importation, and the sale within
the United States after importation of
certain refrigerators and components
thereof that infringe certain claims of
U.S. Patent Nos. 6,082,130 (‘‘the ‘130
patent); 6,810,680 (‘‘the ‘680 patent’’);
6,915,644 (‘‘the ‘644 patent’’); 6,971,730;
and 7,240,980. Whirlpool named LG
Electronics, Inc.; LG Electronics, USA,
Inc.; and LG Electronics Monterrey
Mexico, S.A., De, CV (collectively,
‘‘LG’’) as respondents. The complaint, as
supplemented, further alleges that an
industry in the United States exists as
required by subsection (a)(2) of section
337 and requested that the Commission
issue an exclusion order and cease and
desist orders.
On September 11, 2008, Whirlpool
and LG filed a joint motion seeking
termination of this investigation with
respect to the ‘680 patent and the ‘644
patent on the basis of a settlement
agreement. On September 25, 2008, the
ALJ issued an ID, Order No. 10,
terminating the investigation, in part, as
to the ‘680 and ‘644 patents. No
petitions for review were filed. On
October 27, 2008, the Commission
determined not to review Order No. 10.
On October 17, 2008, Whirlpool filed
a motion for summary determination
that it had satisfied the importation
requirement. On November 20, 2008,
the ALJ issued the subject ID, Order No.
14, granting complainant’s motion for
summary determination of importation.
No petitions for review were filed. On
December 15, 2008, the Commission
issued notice that it had determined not
to review Order No. 14.
On July 24, 2008, Whirlpool filed a
motion seeking leave to amend the
complaint and notice of investigation to
(1) remove references to patents that had
been withdrawn from this investigation;
(2) add a reference to a non-exclusive
license that relates to two patents at
issue; and (3) update the current state of
the domestic industry. On November 25,
2008, the ALJ issued Order No. 15, in
which he granted Whirlpool’s motion as
to (1) and (3) above and denied it with
respect to (2). No petitions for review
were filed. The Commission determined
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
20345
not to review the subject ID on
December 15, 2008.
On February 26, 2009, the ALJ issued
a final ID, in which he found no
violation of Section 337. On March 11,
2009, Whirlpool filed a petition for
review, and LG filed a contingent
petition for review. Whirlpool, LG and
OUII filed responses. The Commission
has determined to review the final ID
and requests briefing by the parties to
the investigation on the issue of claim
construction. In particular, the
Commission would like the parties to
address:
1. Do the ordinary and customary
meanings of the following terms differ
from the meanings ascribed to them by
the inventors’ testimony: ‘‘freezer
compartment,’’ ‘‘disposed within,’’
‘‘mounted on,’’ ‘‘having an access
opening and a closure member for
closing the access opening,’’ and ‘‘ice
storage bin having a bottom opening.’’
Please discuss with reference to
dictionary definitions and expert
testimony.
2. Are the phrases ‘‘mounted on’’ and
‘‘disposed within’’ mutually exclusive
in the context of claim 1 of the ‘130
patent? Are either or both of these terms
synonymous with ‘‘installed’’?
3. How does the prosecution history
inform the claim construction, in terms
of disclaimer and interpretation?
4. Would one of ordinary skill in the
art understand a space defined by a
cabinet having an access opening but
not having a closure member to mean a
‘‘freezer compartment,’’ given that
temperatures within such a
compartment cannot be reduced to
freezing?
5. In construing claim 1, the parties
dispute whether the ‘‘closure member’’
is part of the freezer compartment. What
conclusions can be drawn from the term
‘‘freezer compartment closure member’’
appearing in dependent claim 9? What
conclusions, if any, can be drawn from
a comparison of claim 1 and
independent claim 10, the latter clearly
identifying the closure member as part
of the refrigerator.
6. To what extent should the
Commission consider inventor
testimony when construing the claims?
See Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. BP
Chems. Ltd., 78 F.3d 1575, 1580
(‘‘Markman requires us to give no
deference to the testimony of the
inventor about the meaning of the
claims.’’).
7. For parties proposing additional or
different meanings on claim
construction, do these point to a
different result for infringement,
validity, or domestic industry? Please
explain with regard to each relevant
E:\FR\FM\01MYN1.SGM
01MYN1
20346
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 83 / Friday, May 1, 2009 / Notices
refrigerator model. Responses should
rely on evidence of record.
8. Specifically, with respect to
infringement, respond to the following:
Does the closure member have to be the
closure member to the access to the
freezer compartment? If so, can a selfcontained ice maker within a fresh-food
compartment qualify as a freezer for
which there is a closure member within
the meaning of claim 1? Does it matter
if both the ice maker and the storage
unit are in the closure member?
Opening submissions must be filed no
later than close of business on May 8,
2009. Reply submissions must be filed
no later than the close of business on
May 15, 2009. No further submissions
on any of 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 non-confidential
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 210.42–46 of the Commission’s
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.42–46).
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
Issued: April 27, 2009.
William R. Bishop,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E9–9997 Filed 4–30–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:15 Apr 30, 2009
Jkt 217001
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 09–15]
Roy Chi Lung, M.D.; Revocation of
Registration
On October 22, 2008, the Deputy
Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement
Administration, issued an Order to
Show Cause to Roy C. Lung, M.D.
(Respondent), of Fountain Valley,
California. The Show Cause Order
proposed the revocation of
Respondent’s DEA Certificate of
Registration, BL4971051, as a
practitioner, and the denial of any
pending applications to renew or
modify his registration, on the grounds
that Respondent is ‘‘not authorized to
handle controlled substances in the
state of California,’’ and that he falsified
his most recent application for renewal
of his DEA registration. Show Cause
Order at 1.
More specifically, the Show Cause
Order alleged that effective January 30,
2008, the Medical Board of California
suspended Respondent’s license to
practice medicine. Id. The Show Cause
Order thus alleged that Respondent is
‘‘currently without authority to handle
controlled substances in the State of
California, the State in which’’
Respondent is registered with DEA. Id.
The Show Cause Order also alleged that
on April 1, 2008, Respondent falsified
his application for renewal of his DEA
registration when he answered ‘‘no’’ to
the question of whether he had ever had
a state license suspended. Id. at 2.
Respondent requested a hearing on
the allegations, and the matter was
assigned to an Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ), who proceeded to conduct
pre-hearing procedures. Thereafter, the
Government moved for summary
disposition on the ground that under the
terms of an order of the Medical Board
of California, Respondent’s state
medical license was suspended. Gov.
Mot. at 1. The motion noted that the
Medical Board’s Order of Interim
Suspension not only suspended
Respondent’s license, it expressly
‘‘prohibited Respondent from handling
controlled substances and ordered
Respondent to deliver to the Board his
DEA registration.’’ Id. at 3. The
Government argued that there was no
dispute that Respondent’s license had
been suspended in California, the State
in which he maintains his DEA
registration, and that under Federal
Law, DEA ‘‘cannot register a practitioner
to handle controlled substances who is
without authority to handle controlled
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
substances in the State in which he
practices.’’ Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C.
823(f)). Id. at 2.
In support of its motion, the
Government attached a copy of the
Order of Interim Suspension. The Order
specifically stated that Respondent
‘‘shall not * * * [p]ractice or attempt to
practice any aspect of medicine in the
State of California * * * [nor] [p]ossess,
order, purchase, receive, prescribe,
furnish, administer, or otherwise
distribute controlled substances or
dangerous drugs as defined by federal or
state law.’’ Johnston, Ex. Dir., v. Chi
Wing Lung, M.D., OAH No.
L2008010755, Order on Ex Parte
Petition for Order of Interim
Suspension, January 30, 2008, at 7. The
Order also required that Respondent
‘‘immediately deliver to the Division of
Medical Quality * * * all Drug
Enforcement Administration forms, and
all Drug Enforcement Administration
permits.’’ Id.
The ALJ ordered the Respondent to
respond to the Government’s motion by
December 9, 2008; Respondent filed his
response on December 5, 2008.
Respondent requested that the ALJ
‘‘delay ruling on the Government’s
motion until April 1, 2009,’’ as
Respondent anticipated that the State
Board would issue a final decision
regarding his medical license by then. R.
Resp. at 1–2.
On December 12, 2008, the ALJ issued
her Recommended Rulings, Findings of
Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision.
The ALJ noted that ‘‘Respondent
himself states that his ‘Medical license
was suspended on an interim basis
pending the recommendation of a
California Administrative Law Judge.’ ’’
ALJ at 3. The ALJ thus concluded that
‘‘[t]hrough the Respondent’s own
admission, * * * Respondent lacks the
authority to practice medicine in the
State of California,’’ and
‘‘[c]onsequently, * * * lacks the ability
to prescribe controlled substances in
that State.’’ Id.
Because no material fact was in
dispute, the ALJ determined that there
was no need for a ‘‘plenary,
administrative hearing.’’ Id. at 5.
Applying the Agency’s settled rule that
it lacks authority under the Controlled
Substances Act to maintain a
registration if the registrant is without
state authority to handle controlled
substances in the State in which he
practices medicine, the ALJ concluded
that ‘‘the DEA lacks authority to
continue the Respondent’s DEA
registration.’’ Id. at 5; see 21 U.S.C.
823(f), 824(a)(3). The ALJ thus granted
the Government’s motion for summary
disposition and recommended that the
E:\FR\FM\01MYN1.SGM
01MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 83 (Friday, May 1, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20345-20346]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-9997]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-632]
In the Matter of Certain Refrigerators and Components Thereof;
Notice of Commission Decision To Review in Its Entirety; A Final
Initial Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review the presiding administrative law
judge's (``ALJ'') final initial determination (``ID'') finding no
violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the above-
captioned investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean Jackson Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3104. Copies of the
ALJ's IDs and all other 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 February 21, 2008, the Commission voted
to institute this investigation, based on a complaint filed by
Whirlpool Patents Company of St. Joseph, Michigan; Whirlpool
Manufacturing Corporation of St. Joseph, Michigan; Whirlpool
Corporation of Benton Harbor, Michigan, and Maytag Corporation of
Benton Harbor, Michigan (collectively, ``Whirlpool''). The complaint,
as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the
importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the
sale within the United States after importation of certain
refrigerators and components thereof that infringe certain claims of
U.S. Patent Nos. 6,082,130 (``the `130 patent); 6,810,680 (``the `680
patent''); 6,915,644 (``the `644 patent''); 6,971,730; and 7,240,980.
Whirlpool named LG Electronics, Inc.; LG Electronics, USA, Inc.; and LG
Electronics Monterrey Mexico, S.A., De, CV (collectively, ``LG'') as
respondents. The complaint, as supplemented, further alleges that an
industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2)
of section 337 and requested that the Commission issue an exclusion
order and cease and desist orders.
On September 11, 2008, Whirlpool and LG filed a joint motion
seeking termination of this investigation with respect to the `680
patent and the `644 patent on the basis of a settlement agreement. On
September 25, 2008, the ALJ issued an ID, Order No. 10, terminating the
investigation, in part, as to the `680 and `644 patents. No petitions
for review were filed. On October 27, 2008, the Commission determined
not to review Order No. 10.
On October 17, 2008, Whirlpool filed a motion for summary
determination that it had satisfied the importation requirement. On
November 20, 2008, the ALJ issued the subject ID, Order No. 14,
granting complainant's motion for summary determination of importation.
No petitions for review were filed. On December 15, 2008, the
Commission issued notice that it had determined not to review Order No.
14.
On July 24, 2008, Whirlpool filed a motion seeking leave to amend
the complaint and notice of investigation to (1) remove references to
patents that had been withdrawn from this investigation; (2) add a
reference to a non-exclusive license that relates to two patents at
issue; and (3) update the current state of the domestic industry. On
November 25, 2008, the ALJ issued Order No. 15, in which he granted
Whirlpool's motion as to (1) and (3) above and denied it with respect
to (2). No petitions for review were filed. The Commission determined
not to review the subject ID on December 15, 2008.
On February 26, 2009, the ALJ issued a final ID, in which he found
no violation of Section 337. On March 11, 2009, Whirlpool filed a
petition for review, and LG filed a contingent petition for review.
Whirlpool, LG and OUII filed responses. The Commission has determined
to review the final ID and requests briefing by the parties to the
investigation on the issue of claim construction. In particular, the
Commission would like the parties to address:
1. Do the ordinary and customary meanings of the following terms
differ from the meanings ascribed to them by the inventors' testimony:
``freezer compartment,'' ``disposed within,'' ``mounted on,'' ``having
an access opening and a closure member for closing the access
opening,'' and ``ice storage bin having a bottom opening.'' Please
discuss with reference to dictionary definitions and expert testimony.
2. Are the phrases ``mounted on'' and ``disposed within'' mutually
exclusive in the context of claim 1 of the `130 patent? Are either or
both of these terms synonymous with ``installed''?
3. How does the prosecution history inform the claim construction,
in terms of disclaimer and interpretation?
4. Would one of ordinary skill in the art understand a space
defined by a cabinet having an access opening but not having a closure
member to mean a ``freezer compartment,'' given that temperatures
within such a compartment cannot be reduced to freezing?
5. In construing claim 1, the parties dispute whether the ``closure
member'' is part of the freezer compartment. What conclusions can be
drawn from the term ``freezer compartment closure member'' appearing in
dependent claim 9? What conclusions, if any, can be drawn from a
comparison of claim 1 and independent claim 10, the latter clearly
identifying the closure member as part of the refrigerator.
6. To what extent should the Commission consider inventor testimony
when construing the claims? See Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. BP Chems.
Ltd., 78 F.3d 1575, 1580 (``Markman requires us to give no deference to
the testimony of the inventor about the meaning of the claims.'').
7. For parties proposing additional or different meanings on claim
construction, do these point to a different result for infringement,
validity, or domestic industry? Please explain with regard to each
relevant
[[Page 20346]]
refrigerator model. Responses should rely on evidence of record.
8. Specifically, with respect to infringement, respond to the
following: Does the closure member have to be the closure member to the
access to the freezer compartment? If so, can a self-contained ice
maker within a fresh-food compartment qualify as a freezer for which
there is a closure member within the meaning of claim 1? Does it matter
if both the ice maker and the storage unit are in the closure member?
Opening submissions must be filed no later than close of business
on May 8, 2009. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close
of business on May 15, 2009. No further submissions on any of 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 non-confidential 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 210.42-46 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 210.42-46).
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
Issued: April 27, 2009.
William R. Bishop,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E9-9997 Filed 4-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
