In the Matter of Certain R-134a Coolant (Otherwise Known As 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane); Notice of Commission Determination To Review the Remand Determination of the Presiding Administrative Law Judge and To Extend the Target Date, 27048-27049 [E9-13110]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
27048
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 107 / Friday, June 5, 2009 / Notices
publicly available at any time. While
you can ask us in your comment to
withhold from public review your
personal identifying information, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
(Authority: 43 CFR 2711.1–2(a) and (c))
Dated: April 15, 2009.
Tom Pogacnik,
Deputy State Director, Natural Resources
(CA–930).
[FR Doc. E9–13115 Filed 6–4–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–40–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–623]
In the Matter of Certain R–134a Coolant
(Otherwise Known As 1,1,1,2Tetrafluoroethane); Notice of
Commission Determination To Review
the Remand Determination of the
Presiding Administrative Law Judge
and To Extend the Target Date
erowe on PROD1PC63 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
the Remand Determination (‘‘RID’’)
issued by the presiding administrative
law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) in the abovecaptioned investigation on April 1,
2009. The Commission has also
determined to extend the target date for
completion of the investigation to
August 3, 2009.
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.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:06 Jun 04, 2009
Jkt 217001
The
Commission instituted this investigation
on December 31, 2007, based on a
complaint filed by INEOS Fluor
Holdings Ltd., INEOS Fluor Ltd., and
INEOS Fluor Americas LLC
(collectively, ‘‘Ineos’’). The complaint
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 R–134a coolant
(otherwise known as 1,1,1,2tetrafluoroethane) by reason of
infringement of various claims of United
States Patent No. 5,744,658.
Complainants subsequently added
allegations of infringement with regard
to United States Patent Nos. 5,382,722
and 5,559,276 (‘‘the ‘276 patent’’), but
only claim 1 of the ‘276 patent remains
at issue in this investigation. The
complaint named two respondents,
Sinochem Modern Environmental
Protection Chemicals (Xi’an) Co., Ltd.
and Sinochem Ningbo Ltd. Two
additional respondents were
subsequently added: Sinochem
Environmental Protection Chemicals
(Taicang) Co., Ltd. and Sinochem
(U.S.A.) Inc. The four respondents are
collectively referred to as ‘‘Sinochem.’’
On December 1, 2008, the ALJ issued
his final ID, finding that Sinochem had
violated section 337. He concluded that
respondents’ accused process infringed
claim 1 of the ‘276 patent and that the
domestic industry requirement had been
met. He also found that claim 1 was not
invalid and that it was not
unenforceable. The Commission
determined to review the ALJ’s final ID
with regard to the effective filing date of
the asserted claim, anticipation, and
obviousness, to supplement the ALJ’s
reasoning regarding the effective filing
date, and to remand the investigation to
the ALJ to conduct further proceedings
related to anticipation and obviousness.
To accommodate the remand, the
Commission extended the target date to
June 1, 2009 and instructed the ALJ to
issue the RID by April 1, 2009.
The ALJ issued the RID on April 1,
2009. The RID concluded that
Sinochem’s arguments concerning
anticipation and obviousness were
waived under the ALJ’s ground rules
and, alternatively, that the arguments
were without merit. Sinochem filed a
petition for review of the RID. The
Commission investigative attorney
(‘‘IA’’) and Ineos opposed Sinochem’s
petition. Subsequently, Sinochem filed
a motion to strike and for leave to file
a reply to Ineos’s and the IA’s
oppositions.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Having examined the record of this
investigation, including the ALJ’s RID
and the submissions of the parties, the
Commission has determined to review
the RID in its entirety.
To assist in its review, and in order to
more fully analyze Sinochem’s
‘‘admission’’-based arguments, the
Commission is interested in receiving
further briefing on the following
questions:
(1) Based upon the undisputed scope
and content of the prior art as set forth
in the ‘276 patent specification and as
presented by the expert witnesses at
trial, what differences exist between the
prior art and claim 1 of the ‘276 patent?
(2) Based on your answer to question
(1), would claim 1 have been obvious in
light of the remand references to a
person of ordinary skill in the art under
KSR International, Co. v. Teleflex Co.,
550 U.S. 398 (2007)?
(3) Are the ALJ’s conclusions
regarding waiver consistent with
Commission Rule 210.14(c)? If not, what
is the effect on the ALJ’s conclusions in
the remand determination?
(4) Does the exception to the ALJ’s
ground rule reciting that ‘‘contentions of
which a party is not aware and could
not be aware in the exercise of
reasonable diligence at the time of filing
the pre-hearing statements’’ apply to
Respondents’ contentions regarding
admissions elicited during the hearing?
If so, what is the effect on the ALJ’s
conclusions in the remand
determination?
The Commission has determined to
extend the target date for completion of
this investigation to August 3, 2009, in
order to provide adequate time for
review of the RID. The Commission has
determined to deny as moot Sinochem’s
motion to strike and for leave to file a
reply.
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. The written submissions
must be filed no later than close of
business on June 15, 2009. Reply
submissions must be filed no later than
the close of business on June 25, 2009.
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
E:\FR\FM\05JNN1.SGM
05JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 107 / Friday, June 5, 2009 / Notices
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 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 the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR Part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: June 1, 2009.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E9–13110 Filed 6–4–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–03–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–666]
Notice of Commission Decision Not To
Review an Initial Determination
Correcting the Name of ASUS
Computer International in the
Complaint and Notice of Investigation;
Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent
Lamp (‘‘CCFL’’) Inverter Circuits and
Products Containing the Same
erowe on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined not to
review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’)
(Order No. 8) issued by the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) in the
above-referenced investigation
correcting the name of ASUS Computer
International in the complaint and
notice of investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Daniel E. Valencia, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–1999. 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:06 Jun 04, 2009
Jkt 217001
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.
The
Commission instituted this investigation
on January 14, 2009, based on a
complaint filed by O2 Micro
International, Ltd. of the Cayman
Islands and O2 Micro, Inc. of Santa
Clara, California (collectively, ‘‘O2
Micro’’). 74 FR 2099. The complaint
alleges 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 cold cathode
fluorescent lamp inverter circuits and
products containing the same by reason
of infringement of various U.S. patents.
The complaint names ten respondents,
including ASUSTeK Computer
International America of Fremont,
California.
On April 27, 2009, O2 Micro moved
to amend the complaint and notice of
investigation to correct the name of
respondent ASUSTeK Computer
International America to ASUS
Computer International (‘‘ASUS’’). No
party opposed this motion.
On May 13, 2009, the ALJ issued the
subject ID correcting the name of
respondent ASUS. No petitions for
review of the ID were filed.
The Commission has determined not
to review the ALJ’s 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
section 210.42 of the Commission’s
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.42).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
By order of the Commission.
Issued: June 2, 2009.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E9–13129 Filed 6–4–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
27049
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–465 and 731–
TA–1161 (Preliminary)]
Certain Steel Grating From China
AGENCY: United States International
Trade Commission.
ACTION: Institution of countervailing
duty and antidumping duty
investigations and scheduling of
preliminary phase investigations.
SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives
notice of the institution of
investigations, commencement of
preliminary phase countervailing duty
investigation No. 701–TA–465
(Preliminary), and commencement of
antidumping duty investigation No.
731–TA–1161 (Preliminary) under
sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Tariff
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 19
U.S.C. 1673b(a)) (the Act) to determine
whether there is a reasonable indication
that an industry in the United States is
materially injured or threatened with
material injury, or the establishment of
an industry in the United States is
materially retarded, by reason of
imports from China of certain steel
grating, provided for in subheading
7308.90.70 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States, that are
alleged to be subsidized by the
Government of China and sold in the
United States at less than fair value.
Unless the Department of Commerce
extends the time for initiation pursuant
to section 732(c)(1)(B) of the Act (19
U.S.C. 1673a(c)(1)(B)), the Commission
must reach preliminary determinations
in these investigations in 45 days, or in
this case by July 13, 2009. The
Commission’s views are due at
Commerce within five business days
thereafter, or by July 20, 2009.
For further information concerning
the conduct of these investigations and
rules of general application, consult the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure, part 201, subparts A through
E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207,
subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).
DATES: Effective Date: May 29, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Edward Petronzio (202–205–3176),
Office of Investigations, U.S.
International Trade Commission, 500 E
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Hearing-impaired 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
E:\FR\FM\05JNN1.SGM
05JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 107 (Friday, June 5, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27048-27049]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13110]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-623]
In the Matter of Certain R-134a Coolant (Otherwise Known As
1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane); Notice of Commission Determination To
Review the Remand Determination of the Presiding Administrative Law
Judge and To Extend the Target Date
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 Remand Determination (``RID'')
issued by the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') in the
above-captioned investigation on April 1, 2009. The Commission has also
determined to extend the target date for completion of the
investigation to August 3, 2009.
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: The Commission instituted this investigation
on December 31, 2007, based on a complaint filed by INEOS Fluor
Holdings Ltd., INEOS Fluor Ltd., and INEOS Fluor Americas LLC
(collectively, ``Ineos''). The complaint 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 R-134a coolant (otherwise
known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane) by reason of infringement of
various claims of United States Patent No. 5,744,658. Complainants
subsequently added allegations of infringement with regard to United
States Patent Nos. 5,382,722 and 5,559,276 (``the `276 patent''), but
only claim 1 of the `276 patent remains at issue in this investigation.
The complaint named two respondents, Sinochem Modern Environmental
Protection Chemicals (Xi'an) Co., Ltd. and Sinochem Ningbo Ltd. Two
additional respondents were subsequently added: Sinochem Environmental
Protection Chemicals (Taicang) Co., Ltd. and Sinochem (U.S.A.) Inc. The
four respondents are collectively referred to as ``Sinochem.''
On December 1, 2008, the ALJ issued his final ID, finding that
Sinochem had violated section 337. He concluded that respondents'
accused process infringed claim 1 of the `276 patent and that the
domestic industry requirement had been met. He also found that claim 1
was not invalid and that it was not unenforceable. The Commission
determined to review the ALJ's final ID with regard to the effective
filing date of the asserted claim, anticipation, and obviousness, to
supplement the ALJ's reasoning regarding the effective filing date, and
to remand the investigation to the ALJ to conduct further proceedings
related to anticipation and obviousness. To accommodate the remand, the
Commission extended the target date to June 1, 2009 and instructed the
ALJ to issue the RID by April 1, 2009.
The ALJ issued the RID on April 1, 2009. The RID concluded that
Sinochem's arguments concerning anticipation and obviousness were
waived under the ALJ's ground rules and, alternatively, that the
arguments were without merit. Sinochem filed a petition for review of
the RID. The Commission investigative attorney (``IA'') and Ineos
opposed Sinochem's petition. Subsequently, Sinochem filed a motion to
strike and for leave to file a reply to Ineos's and the IA's
oppositions.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the
ALJ's RID and the submissions of the parties, the Commission has
determined to review the RID in its entirety.
To assist in its review, and in order to more fully analyze
Sinochem's ``admission''-based arguments, the Commission is interested
in receiving further briefing on the following questions:
(1) Based upon the undisputed scope and content of the prior art as
set forth in the `276 patent specification and as presented by the
expert witnesses at trial, what differences exist between the prior art
and claim 1 of the `276 patent?
(2) Based on your answer to question (1), would claim 1 have been
obvious in light of the remand references to a person of ordinary skill
in the art under KSR International, Co. v. Teleflex Co., 550 U.S. 398
(2007)?
(3) Are the ALJ's conclusions regarding waiver consistent with
Commission Rule 210.14(c)? If not, what is the effect on the ALJ's
conclusions in the remand determination?
(4) Does the exception to the ALJ's ground rule reciting that
``contentions of which a party is not aware and could not be aware in
the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of filing the pre-
hearing statements'' apply to Respondents' contentions regarding
admissions elicited during the hearing? If so, what is the effect on
the ALJ's conclusions in the remand determination?
The Commission has determined to extend the target date for
completion of this investigation to August 3, 2009, in order to provide
adequate time for review of the RID. The Commission has determined to
deny as moot Sinochem's motion to strike and for leave to file a reply.
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. The
written submissions must be filed no later than close of business on
June 15, 2009. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close
of business on June 25, 2009. 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
[[Page 27049]]
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
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 the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR Part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: June 1, 2009.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E9-13110 Filed 6-4-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-03-P
