In the Matter of: Certain Active Comfort Footwear; Notice of Commission Determination To Terminate the Investigation, 55855-55856 [E9-26060]

Download as PDF dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Notices Internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// 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 (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http://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 http:// www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http://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 (http://www.usitc.gov). The 
public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's 
electronic docket (EDIS) at http://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