In the Matter of: Certain Active Comfort Footwear; Notice of Commission Determination To Terminate the Investigation, 55855-55856 [E9-26060]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Notices
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 12, 2007, based on a
complaint filed by SanDisk Corporation
of Milpitas, CA. 72 FR 70610 (Dec. 12,
2007). 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 flash memory controllers, drives,
memory cards, media players and
products containing the same by reason
of infringement of various claims of
United States Patent Nos. 6,426,893;
6,763,424 (‘‘the ’424 patent’’); 5,719,808;
6,947,332; and 7,137,011 (‘‘the ’011
patent’’). Three patents and several
claims were subsequently terminated
from the investigation. Claims 17, 24
and 30 of the ’424 patent and claim 8
of the ’011 patent remain in the
investigation. The complaint named
nearly fifty respondents. Twenty-one
respondents were terminated from the
investigation based on settlement
agreements, consent orders and
withdrawal of allegations from the
complaint. Five respondents defaulted.
The following respondents remain in
the investigation: Imation Corporation
of Oakdale, MN; Imation Enterprises
Corporation of Oakdale, MN; and
Memorex Products, Inc. of Cerritos, CA
(collectively, ‘‘Imation Respondents’’);
Phison Electronics Corporation of
Hsinchu, Taiwan; Silicon Motion Inc. of
Taiwan; Silicon Motion, Inc. of
Milpitas, CA; Skymedi Corporation of
Hsinchu, Taiwan; Power Quotient
International Co., Ltd. of Taipei,
Taiwan; Power Quotient International
(HK) Co., Ltd. of Hong Kong; Syscom
Development Co., Ltd. of the British
Virgin Islands; PQI Corporation of
Fremont, California; Kingston
Technology Corporation of Fountain
Valley, CA; Kingston Technology
Company, Inc. of Fountain Valley, CA;
MemoSun, Inc. of Fountain Valley, CA;
Transcend Information Inc. of Taipei,
Taiwan; Transcend Information Inc. of
Orange, CA; Transcend Information
Maryland, Inc. of Linthicum, MD;
Apacer Technology Inc. of Taipei Hsien,
Taiwan; Apacer Memory America, Inc.
of Milpitas, CA; Dane Memory S.A. of
Bagnolet, France; Deantusaiocht Dane-
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:20 Oct 28, 2009
Jkt 220001
Elec TEO of Spiddal, Galway, Ireland;
Dane-Elec Corporation USA of Irvine
CA; LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. of
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey; and LG
Electronics, Inc. of Seoul, South Korea.
On April 10, 2009, the ALJ issued his
final ID finding no violation of section
337 by Respondents. The ALJ issued a
corrected version of his final ID on April
16, 2009. The ID included the ALJ’s
recommended determination on remedy
and bonding. In the subject ID, the ALJ
found that the accused products do not
infringe asserted claims 17, 24 and 30 of
the ’424 patent. The ALJ also found that
none of the asserted claims of the ’424
patent were proven to be invalid as
anticipated or obvious in view of the
prior art. The ALJ further found the
Respondents not liable for contributory
or induced infringement of the asserted
claims of the ’424 patent. Likewise, the
ALJ found that SanDisk failed to prove
that the Imation Respondents, the only
respondents accused of infringing claim
8 of the ’011 patent, induced or
contributed to infringement of the
patent. The ALJ also found that
SanDisk’s rights in the ’011 patent were
not exhausted and that claim 8 of the
’011 patent satisfies the indefiniteness
requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112, second
paragraph. The ALJ, however,
concluded that the prior art rendered
claim 8 of the ’011 patent obvious.
On May 4, 2009, SanDisk and the
Commission investigative attorney filed
petitions for review of the ID. That same
day, Respondents filed a collective
contingent petition for review of the ID
with respect to the ’424 patent. Skymedi
Corporation and the Imation
Respondents, in addition to joining the
collective contingent petition for
review, filed individual contingent
petitions for review. On May 18, 2009,
the parties filed responses to the various
petitions and contingent petitions for
review.
On August 24, 2009, the Commission
determined to review the final ID in part
and requested briefing on several issues
it determined to review, and on remedy,
the public interest and bonding. 74 FR
44382 (Aug. 28, 2009). The Commission
determined to review the claim
construction of claims 17, 24 and 30 of
the ’424 patent; infringement of the
asserted claims of the ’424 patent;
validity of the ’424 patent; and the ALJ’s
decision not to consider the Sinclair
PCT publication as evidence of prior art
to claim 17 of the ’424 patent. Id.
On September 3, 2009, the parties
filed written submissions on the issues
on review, remedy, the public interest
and bonding. On September 14, 2009,
the parties filed response submissions
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
55855
on the issues on review, remedy, the
public interest and bonding.
Having examined the record of this
investigation, including the ALJ’s final
ID, the Commission has determined to
(1) reverse the ALJ’s finding that claim
17 of the ’424 patent does not cover
single-page updates; (2) reverse the
ALJ’s finding that the claim term
‘‘reading and assembling data from the
first and second plurality of pages’’ as
recited in claim 20 of the ’424 patent
excludes the so-called table method as
disclosed in Figure 12; (3) affirm the
ALJ’s finding that the accused products
do not infringe the asserted claims of
the ’424 patent; and (4) affirm the ALJ’s
finding that none of the asserted claims
of the ’424 patent were proven to be
invalid as anticipated or obvious in
view of the prior art considered by the
ALJ. Given the Commission’s affirmance
of the ALJ’s determination that SanDisk
failed to establish that the accused
controllers infringe claim 17 of the ’424
patent, the Commission declines to
reach the issue of whether the ALJ
should have considered the Sinclair
PCT publication as evidence of prior art
to claim 17 of the ’424 patent.
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
sections 210.42–46 and 210.50 of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 210.42–46 and
210.50).
Issued: October 23, 2009.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E9–25974 Filed 10–28–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Inv. No. 337–TA–660]
In the Matter of: Certain Active Comfort
Footwear; Notice of Commission
Determination To Terminate the
Investigation
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to
terminate the investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark B. Rees, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202–
E:\FR\FM\29OCN1.SGM
29OCN1
55856
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Notices
205–3116. Copies of the ID and all other
nonconfidential 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. Hearingimpaired persons are advised that
information on this matter can be
obtained by contacting the
Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–
205–1810. 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.
The
Commission instituted this investigation
on November 25, 2008, based on the
complaint of Masai Marketing & Trading
AG of Romanshorn, Switzerland and
Masai USA Corp. of Haley, Idaho
(‘‘Complainants’’). 73 FR 73884 (Nov.
25, 2008). The complaint, as
supplemented, 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 active
comfort footwear that infringes certain
claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,341,432.
Complainants named as respondents
RYN Korea Co., Ltd. of Seoul, Korea
(‘‘RYN’’); Main d/b/a
WalkingShoesPlus.com of Los Angeles,
California (‘‘WalkingShoesPlus’’); and
Feet First Inc. of Boca Raton, Florida
(‘‘Feet First’’). The Tannery of
Cambridge, Massachusetts and A Better
Way to Health of West Melbourne,
Florida were subsequently added as
respondents in the investigation by an
unreviewed initial determination (‘‘ID’’)
(Order No. 4). 74 FR 11378 (Mar. 17,
2009).
On May 21, 2009, the Commission
determined not to review an ID (Order
No. 6) finding WalkingShoesPlus and
Feet First in default for failure to
respond to the complaint and notice of
investigation.
On August 5, 2009, the Commission
determined not to review an ID (Order
No. 12) terminating the investigation
based on a settlement agreement as to
RYN and withdrawal of the complaint
as to the remaining respondents. The
Commission also requested briefing on
remedy, bonding, and the public
interest in connection with the
defaulting respondents. 74 FR 40843
(Aug. 13, 2009).
dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:20 Oct 28, 2009
Jkt 220001
Complainants and RYN filed a joint
response to the Commission’s request.
The joint response states that
Complainants do not believe that any
remedy should be ordered against the
defaulting parties and that
Complainants therefore seek no relief
against them. Complainants and RYN
contend that the issuance of any remedy
as to the defaulting parties would not be
consistent with the spirit of the
settlement agreement that resolved the
dispute and led to the termination of the
investigation. Complainants and RYN
therefore submit that no remedy should
be imposed on the defaulting parties,
that there are no public interest
concerns, and that a bond should not be
imposed. The investigative attorney also
filed a response to the Commission’s
request. She takes the position that,
under the unique circumstances
presented, no limited exclusion order or
cease and desist order should issue
against defaulting respondents.
Based on consideration of the record,
including the responses of the parties to
the Commission’s request for briefing,
the fact that Complainants do not seek
relief against the defaulting
respondents, and the settlement
agreement between the Complainants
and RYN, the Commission has
determined not to issue a remedy
against the defaulting respondents and
has terminated the investigation in its
entirety.
The authority for the Commission’s
determination is contained in section
337(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (19 U.S.C. 1337(g)), and in
section 210.21 of the Commission’s
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.21).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: October 26, 2009.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
William R. Bishop,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E9–26060 Filed 10–28–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Inv. No. 337–TA–691]
Certain Inkjet Ink Supplies and
Components Thereof; Notice of
Investigation
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Institution of investigation
pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337.
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a
complaint was filed with the U.S.
International Trade Commission on
September 23, 2009, under section 337
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended,
19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of HewlettPackard Company of Palo Alto,
California. A letter supplementing the
complaint was filed on October 7, 2009.
The complaint 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 inkjet ink supplies and
components thereof by reason of
infringement of certain claims of U.S.
Patent Nos. 6,959,985; 7,104,630;
6,089,687; and 6,264,301. The
complaint further alleges that an
industry in the United States exists as
required by subsection (a)(2) of section
337.
The complainant requests that the
Commission institute an investigation
and, after the investigation, issue an
exclusion order and cease and desist
orders.
ADDRESSES: The complaint, except for
any confidential information contained
therein, is 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., Room
112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone
202–205–2000. Hearing impaired
individuals are advised that information
on this matter can be 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 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Benjamin Levi, Esq., Office of Unfair
Import Investigations, U.S. International
Trade Commission, telephone (202)
205–2781.
Authority: The authority for institution of
this investigation is contained in section 337
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and
in section 210.10 of the Commission’s Rules
of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10
(2009).
Scope of Investigation: Having
considered the complaint, the U.S.
International Trade Commission, on
October 22, 2009, ordered that—
E:\FR\FM\29OCN1.SGM
29OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 208 (Thursday, October 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55855-55856]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-26060]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Inv. No. 337-TA-660]
In the Matter of: Certain Active Comfort Footwear; Notice of
Commission Determination To Terminate the Investigation
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to terminate the investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark B. Rees, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-
[[Page 55856]]
205-3116. Copies of the ID and all other nonconfidential 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.
Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter
can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-
1810. 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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation
on November 25, 2008, based on the complaint of Masai Marketing &
Trading AG of Romanshorn, Switzerland and Masai USA Corp. of Haley,
Idaho (``Complainants''). 73 FR 73884 (Nov. 25, 2008). The complaint,
as supplemented, 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 active comfort footwear that infringes certain
claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,341,432. Complainants named as respondents
RYN Korea Co., Ltd. of Seoul, Korea (``RYN''); Main d/b/a
WalkingShoesPlus.com of Los Angeles, California (``WalkingShoesPlus'');
and Feet First Inc. of Boca Raton, Florida (``Feet First''). The
Tannery of Cambridge, Massachusetts and A Better Way to Health of West
Melbourne, Florida were subsequently added as respondents in the
investigation by an unreviewed initial determination (``ID'') (Order
No. 4). 74 FR 11378 (Mar. 17, 2009).
On May 21, 2009, the Commission determined not to review an ID
(Order No. 6) finding WalkingShoesPlus and Feet First in default for
failure to respond to the complaint and notice of investigation.
On August 5, 2009, the Commission determined not to review an ID
(Order No. 12) terminating the investigation based on a settlement
agreement as to RYN and withdrawal of the complaint as to the remaining
respondents. The Commission also requested briefing on remedy, bonding,
and the public interest in connection with the defaulting respondents.
74 FR 40843 (Aug. 13, 2009).
Complainants and RYN filed a joint response to the Commission's
request. The joint response states that Complainants do not believe
that any remedy should be ordered against the defaulting parties and
that Complainants therefore seek no relief against them. Complainants
and RYN contend that the issuance of any remedy as to the defaulting
parties would not be consistent with the spirit of the settlement
agreement that resolved the dispute and led to the termination of the
investigation. Complainants and RYN therefore submit that no remedy
should be imposed on the defaulting parties, that there are no public
interest concerns, and that a bond should not be imposed. The
investigative attorney also filed a response to the Commission's
request. She takes the position that, under the unique circumstances
presented, no limited exclusion order or cease and desist order should
issue against defaulting respondents.
Based on consideration of the record, including the responses of
the parties to the Commission's request for briefing, the fact that
Complainants do not seek relief against the defaulting respondents, and
the settlement agreement between the Complainants and RYN, the
Commission has determined not to issue a remedy against the defaulting
respondents and has terminated the investigation in its entirety.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in
section 337(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C.
1337(g)), and in section 210.21 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (19 CFR 210.21).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: October 26, 2009.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
William R. Bishop,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E9-26060 Filed 10-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
