In the Matter of Certain R-134a Coolant (Otherwise Known as 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane); Notice of Commission Determination To Reverse the Remand Determination of the Presiding Administrative Law Judge and To Terminate the Investigation in Its Entirety With a Finding of No Violation, 39968-39969 [E9-19015]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
39968
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 152 / Monday, August 10, 2009 / Notices
the Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada,
on the first business day after thirty (30)
days from the publication of this notice:
The plat, in five (5) sheets,
representing the dependent resurvey of
a portion of the north boundary of
Township 12 North, Range 27 East; the
west boundary of Township 13 North,
Range 28 East; a portion of the
subdivisional lines of Township 13
North, Range 27 East; and portions of
certain mineral surveys in Townships
13 North, Ranges 27 and 28 East, and
the survey of a portion of the
subdivisional lines, and the subdivision
of certain sections, Township 13 North,
Range 27 East, Mount Diablo Meridian,
Nevada, under Group No. 855, was
accepted July 14, 2009.
This survey was executed to meet
certain administrative needs of the
Walker River Paiute Tribe and the
Bureau of Indian Affairs.
The plat, representing the survey of
the east boundary of Township 1 North,
Range 38 East, Mount Diablo Meridian,
Nevada, under Group No. 861, was
accepted July 22, 2009. The plat, in two
(2) sheets, representing the dependent
resurvey of the Mount Diablo Base Line
through portions of Ranges 38 and 39
East, and a portion of Mineral Survey
No. 3331, and the survey of the north
and east boundaries and a portion of the
subdivisional lines of Township 1
North, Range 381⁄2 East, Mount Diablo
Meridian, Nevada, under Group No.
861, was accepted July 22, 2009.
The plat, representing the dependent
resurvey of the Mount Diablo Base Line
through a portion of Range 39 East and
the survey of a portion of the
subdivisional lines of Township 1
North, Range 39 East, Mount Diablo
Meridian, Nevada, under Group No.
861, was accepted July 22, 2009.
These surveys were executed to meet
certain administrative needs of Rulco,
LLC, and the Bureau of Land
Management.
2. Subject to valid existing rights, the
provisions of existing withdrawals and
classifications, the requirement of
applicable laws, and other segregations
of record, these lands are open to
application, petition and disposal,
including application under the mineral
leasing laws. All such valid applications
received on or before the official filing
of the Plats of Survey described in
paragraph 1, shall be considered as
simultaneously filed at that time.
Applications received thereafter shall be
considered in order of filing.
3. The above-listed surveys are now
the basic record for describing the lands
for all authorized purposes. These
surveys have been placed in the open
files in the BLM Nevada State Office
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:09 Aug 07, 2009
Jkt 217001
and are available to the public as a
matter of information. Copies of the
surveys and related field notes may be
furnished to the public upon payment of
the appropriate fees.
Dated: July 28, 2009.
David D. Morlan,
Chief Cadastral Surveyor, Nevada.
[FR Doc. E9–19062 Filed 8–7–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–HC–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 Reverse
the Remand Determination of the
Presiding Administrative Law Judge
and To Terminate the Investigation in
Its Entirety With a Finding of No
Violation
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Corrected Notice.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to reverse
the conclusion reached in the Remand
Determination (‘‘RID’’) issued by the
presiding administrative law judge
(‘‘ALJ’’) in the above-captioned
investigation that the only remaining
asserted claim of U.S. Patent No.
5,559,276 (‘‘the ‘276 patent’’) is not
obvious. The Commission finds that the
claim would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art and is
therefore invalid. The Commission
affirms the RID’s conclusion that the
asserted claim was not anticipated.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
this matter can be obtained by
contacting the Commission’s TDD
terminal on (202) 205–1810.
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 L.L.C.
(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 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. By order dated January 30,
2009, the Commission supplemented
the ALJ’s reasoning regarding the
effective filing date, and remanded 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
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\10AUN1.SGM
10AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 152 / Monday, August 10, 2009 / Notices
(‘‘IA’’) and Ineos opposed Sinochem’s
petition.
On June 1, 2009, the Commission
determined to review the RID in its
entirety and requested briefing on
certain questions. The Commission
determined to extend the target date to
August 3, 2009, to accommodate its
review.
Having examined the record of this
investigation, including the ALJ’s RID
and the submissions of the parties, the
Commission has determined to reverse
the conclusion of nonobviousness of
claim 1 of the ‘276 patent in the RID. In
so finding, the Commission has
determined to rely on certain party
admissions and other evidence as to the
state of the prior art. The Commission
majority has determined to take no
position on the RID’s conclusions
relating to obviousness arguments based
on prior art references identified in the
Commission’s remand instructions,
including the RID’s conclusions on
whether arguments as to those
references have been waived. The
Commission has also determined not to
rely on the RID’s conclusions as to
anticipation and waiver of anticipation
arguments. The Commission has further
determined to deny Sinochem’s motion
to strike portions of Ineos’s response to
its written submission and for leave to
file a reply to that submission. The
Commission has determined also to
deny Sinochem’s motion to conform
pleadings to evidence taken. These
findings terminate the Commission’s
investigation.
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 Rule
210.45 of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR Part
210.45).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: August 4, 2009.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E9–19015 Filed 8–7–09; 8:45 am]
rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:09 Aug 07, 2009
Jkt 217001
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–676]
In the Matter of Certain Lighting
Control Devices Including Dimmer
Switches and Parts Thereof; Notice of
Commission Decision Not To Review
an Initial Determination Terminating
the Investigation Based on a Consent
Order
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 the presiding administrative law
judge’s (‘‘ALJ’’) initial determination
(‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 8) granting the joint
motion of complainant Lutron
Electronics Co., Inc. (‘‘Lutron’’) and
respondent Universal Smart Electric
Corp. (‘‘Universal’’) to terminate the
investigation based on a consent order.
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
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 May 11, 2009, based on a complaint
filed by Lutron of Coopersburg,
Pennsylvania. 74 FR 21820 (May 11,
2009). 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 lighting control devices
including dimmer switches and parts
thereof by reason of infringement of
United States Patent Nos. 5,637,930 and
5,248,919 as well as U.S. Trademark
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
39969
Registration No. 3,061,804. The
complaint named Universal of Irvine,
California as the sole respondent.
On July 8, 2009, Universal and Lutron
jointly filed a motion pursuant to
Commission rule 210.21(c) (19 CFR
210.21(c)) for termination of the
investigation based on a consent order.
The Commission investigative attorney
supported the motion.
On July 14, 2009, the ALJ issued the
subject ID granting the joint motion to
terminate. The ALJ found that the
consent order stipulation submitted
with the joint motion complied with the
requirements of Commission rule 210.21
(19 CFR 210.21). The ALJ also
concluded that there is no evidence that
termination of this investigation would
be contrary to the public interest. No
petitions for review of this ID were filed.
Having examined the record of this
investigation, the Commission has
determined not to review the 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).
Issued: August 4, 2009.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E9–19021 Filed 8–7–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–468 and 731–
TA–1166–1167 (Preliminary)]
Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks From
China and Mexico
AGENCY: United States International
Trade Commission.
ACTION: Institution of antidumping and
countervailing duty investigations and
scheduling of preliminary phase
investigations.
SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives
notice of the institution of investigations
and commencement of preliminary
phase countervailing duty investigation
No. 701–TA–468 (Preliminary) and
antidumping duty investigation Nos.
731–TA–1166–1167 (Preliminary) under
sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Tariff
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and
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
E:\FR\FM\10AUN1.SGM
10AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 152 (Monday, August 10, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39968-39969]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19015]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Reverse the Remand Determination of the Presiding Administrative Law
Judge and To Terminate the Investigation in Its Entirety With a Finding
of No Violation
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Corrected Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to reverse the conclusion reached in the
Remand Determination (``RID'') issued by the presiding administrative
law judge (``ALJ'') in the above-captioned investigation that the only
remaining asserted claim of U.S. Patent No. 5,559,276 (``the `276
patent'') is not obvious. The Commission finds that the claim would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and is therefore
invalid. The Commission affirms the RID's conclusion that the asserted
claim was not anticipated.
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 L.L.C.
(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 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. By
order dated January 30, 2009, the Commission supplemented the ALJ's
reasoning regarding the effective filing date, and remanded 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
[[Page 39969]]
(``IA'') and Ineos opposed Sinochem's petition.
On June 1, 2009, the Commission determined to review the RID in its
entirety and requested briefing on certain questions. The Commission
determined to extend the target date to August 3, 2009, to accommodate
its review.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the
ALJ's RID and the submissions of the parties, the Commission has
determined to reverse the conclusion of nonobviousness of claim 1 of
the `276 patent in the RID. In so finding, the Commission has
determined to rely on certain party admissions and other evidence as to
the state of the prior art. The Commission majority has determined to
take no position on the RID's conclusions relating to obviousness
arguments based on prior art references identified in the Commission's
remand instructions, including the RID's conclusions on whether
arguments as to those references have been waived. The Commission has
also determined not to rely on the RID's conclusions as to anticipation
and waiver of anticipation arguments. The Commission has further
determined to deny Sinochem's motion to strike portions of Ineos's
response to its written submission and for leave to file a reply to
that submission. The Commission has determined also to deny Sinochem's
motion to conform pleadings to evidence taken. These findings terminate
the Commission's investigation.
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 Rule 210.45 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19
CFR Part 210.45).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: August 4, 2009.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E9-19015 Filed 8-7-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
