In the Matter of Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices and Products Containing the Same; Notice of Commission Determination To Modify a Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Orders, 67249-67250 [E9-30141]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 242 / Friday, December 18, 2009 / Notices fred.ruggles@usitc.gov), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired 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 of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (http:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for these investigations may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. Effective September 15, 2009, the Commission established a schedule for the conduct of the final phase of the subject investigations (74 FR 50242, September 30, 2009). Although the Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) had not yet made its preliminary less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) determination, the Commission, for purposes of efficiency, included the antidumping duty investigation in the schedule for the countervailing duty investigation. On November 17, 2009, Commerce published in the Federal Register its preliminary antidumping duty determination and postponed its final antidumping duty determination (74 FR 59117). Accordingly, the Commission is issuing the additional scheduling date with respect to the antidumping duty investigation as follows: A supplemental brief addressing only Commerce’s final antidumping duty determination is due on April 16, 2010. The brief may not exceed five (5) pages in length. For further information concerning these investigations see the Commission’s notice cited above and the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207). sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority: These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.21 of the Commission’s rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: December 15, 2009. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E9–30129 Filed 12–17–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:33 Dec 17, 2009 Jkt 220001 INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Inv. No. 337–TA–631] In the Matter of Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices and Products Containing the Same; Notice of Commission Determination To Modify a Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Orders AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to modify the limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders issued in the abovecaptioned investigation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clint A. Gerdine, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708–2310. 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 (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 January 25, 2008, based on a complaint filed by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (‘‘Samsung’’) of Korea. 73 FR 4626–27. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 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 liquid crystal display (‘‘LCD’’) devices and products containing the same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,193,666; 6,771,344 (‘‘the ’344 patent’’); 7,295,196; and 6,937,311 (‘‘the ‘311 patent’’). The complaint further alleges the existence of a domestic industry as to each asserted patent. The Commission’s notice of investigation PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 67249 named the following respondents: Sharp Corporation of Japan; Sharp Electronics Corporation of Mahwah, New Jersey; and Sharp Electronics Manufacturing, Company of America, Inc. of San Diego, California. On January 26, 2009, the ALJ issued his final initial determination (‘‘ID’’) finding a violation of section 337 by respondents as to the ’311 and ’344 patents only, and issued his recommended determinations on remedy and bonding. On February 9, 2009, Sharp and the Commission investigative attorney (‘‘IA’’) filed petitions for review of the final ID. The IA and Samsung filed responses to the petitions on February 17, 2009. On March 30, 2009, the Commission determined to review the ID and requested submissions regarding the issues under review as well as remedy, the public interest and bonding. On June 24, 2009, the Commission determined that there is a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and issued a limited exclusion order directed to all respondents and cease and desist orders directed to the respondents located in the U.S.. On November 24, 2009, Sharp petitioned to modify the remedial orders under Commission Rule 210.76(a)(1) in view of the remedial orders issued in 337–TA–634, Certain Liquid Crystal Display Modules, Products Containing Same, and Methods for Using the Same. The IA filed a response in support of the petition on November 30, 2009. On December 2, 2009, Samsung filed a response opposing the petition if not supplemented. On December 8, 2009, Sharp moved for leave to file a reply brief. The Commission has determined to deny Sharp’s motion for leave to file a reply. Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Commission has determined that Sharp’s petition satisfies the requirement of Commission Rule 210.76(a)(1), 19 CFR 210.76(a)(1), for modifying the remedial orders. Accordingly, the Commission has issued orders modifying the remedial orders previously issued in this investigation. This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) and section 210.76(a)(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.76(a)(1)). By order of the Commission. E:\FR\FM\18DEN1.SGM 18DEN1 67250 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 242 / Friday, December 18, 2009 / Notices Issued: December 14, 2009. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary. [FR Doc. E9–30141 Filed 12–17–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–632] Certain Refrigerators and Components Thereof; Notice of Commission Determination To Review in Its Entirety a Final Determination on Remand Finding No Violation of Section 337; Schedule for Briefing on the Issues on Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD 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 in its entirety the presiding administrative law judge’s (‘‘ALJ’’) final initial determination (‘‘ID’’) on remand issued on October 9, 2009, in the abovecaptioned investigation. The Commission is also requesting briefing on one issue on review and on remedy, the public interest, and bonding. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Megan M. Valentine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708–2301. 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 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: On February 21, 2008, the Commission instituted this investigation, based on a complaint filed by Whirlpool Patents Company of St. Joseph, Michigan; Whirlpool Manufacturing Corporation of St. Joseph, Michigan; Whirlpool VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:33 Dec 17, 2009 Jkt 220001 Corporation of Benton Harbor, Michigan, and Maytag Corporation of Benton Harbor, Michigan (collectively, ‘‘Whirlpool’’). The complaint, as supplemented, alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C.* 1337, 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 (‘‘the ’730 patent’’); and 7,240,980 (‘‘the ’980 patent’’). 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 alleged 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 May 1, 2008, Whirlpool filed a motion to partially terminate the investigation based on their withdrawal of the ’730 patent and the ’980 patent. On June 9, 2009, the ALJ issued an ID, Order No. 8, terminating the investigation, in part, as to the ’730 and ’980 patents. LG supported the motion. On June 24, 2008, the Commission determined not to review Order No. 8. 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 an 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, PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 the Commission investigative attorney (‘‘IA’’) filed responses. On April 27, 2009, the Commission determined to review the final ID in its entirety. 74 FR 20345–6 (May 1, 2009). In particular, the Commission was concerned with the ALJ’s claim construction of the terms ‘‘freezer compartment,’’ ‘‘disposed within the freezer compartment,’’ and ‘‘ice storage bin having a bottom opening.’’ The Commission asked the parties to address several questions concerning claim construction. After receiving briefing from the parties, the Commission determined to modify the ALJ’s claim constructions of the terms ‘‘freezer compartment,’’ ‘‘disposed within the freezer compartment,’’ and ‘‘ice storage bin having a bottom opening,’’ determined to affirm the final ID’s construction of the term ‘‘ice maker,’’ and determined to remand the investigation to the ALJ to make findings regarding infringement, validity, and domestic industry consistent with the Commission’s claim constructions. The Commission further ordered the ALJ to issue a remand ID (‘‘RID’’) on violation and a recommended determination on remedy and bonding. The Commission also issued an Opinion detailing its reasons for modifying the claim constructions. On July 22, LG filed a petition for reconsideration of the Commission’s decision to modify the ALJ’s claim constructions of the phrases ‘‘freezer compartment’’ and ‘‘disposed within the freezer compartment.’’ On August 28, 2009, the Commission denied LG’s petition. On October 9, 2009, the ALJ issued his RID, in which he found no violation of Section 337. Specifically, the ALJ found that the accused refrigerators and components thereof do not infringe claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 9 of the ‘130 patent literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. The ALJ also found that claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 9 of the ‘130 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 103 for obviousness, but that claim 8 of the ‘130 patent is not invalid under 35 U.S.C. 103. The ALJ further found that a domestic industry exists. E:\FR\FM\18DEN1.SGM 18DEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 242 (Friday, December 18, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67249-67250]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-30141]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Inv. No. 337-TA-631]


In the Matter of Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices and 
Products Containing the Same; Notice of Commission Determination To 
Modify a Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Orders

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined to modify the limited exclusion order and 
cease and desist orders issued in the above-captioned investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clint A. Gerdine, Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2310. 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 
(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 January 25, 2008, based on a complaint filed by Samsung Electronics 
Co., Ltd. (``Samsung'') of Korea. 73 FR 4626-27. The complaint, as 
supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended, 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 liquid crystal display (``LCD'') devices 
and products containing the same by reason of infringement of certain 
claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,193,666; 6,771,344 (``the '344 patent''); 
7,295,196; and 6,937,311 (``the `311 patent''). The complaint further 
alleges the existence of a domestic industry as to each asserted 
patent. The Commission's notice of investigation named the following 
respondents: Sharp Corporation of Japan; Sharp Electronics Corporation 
of Mahwah, New Jersey; and Sharp Electronics Manufacturing, Company of 
America, Inc. of San Diego, California.
    On January 26, 2009, the ALJ issued his final initial determination 
(``ID'') finding a violation of section 337 by respondents as to the 
'311 and '344 patents only, and issued his recommended determinations 
on remedy and bonding. On February 9, 2009, Sharp and the Commission 
investigative attorney (``IA'') filed petitions for review of the final 
ID. The IA and Samsung filed responses to the petitions on February 17, 
2009.
    On March 30, 2009, the Commission determined to review the ID and 
requested submissions regarding the issues under review as well as 
remedy, the public interest and bonding. On June 24, 2009, the 
Commission determined that there is a violation of section 337 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and issued a limited exclusion order 
directed to all respondents and cease and desist orders directed to the 
respondents located in the U.S..
    On November 24, 2009, Sharp petitioned to modify the remedial 
orders under Commission Rule 210.76(a)(1) in view of the remedial 
orders issued in 337-TA-634, Certain Liquid Crystal Display Modules, 
Products Containing Same, and Methods for Using the Same. The IA filed 
a response in support of the petition on November 30, 2009. On December 
2, 2009, Samsung filed a response opposing the petition if not 
supplemented. On December 8, 2009, Sharp moved for leave to file a 
reply brief. The Commission has determined to deny Sharp's motion for 
leave to file a reply.
    Having reviewed the parties' submissions, the Commission has 
determined that Sharp's petition satisfies the requirement of 
Commission Rule 210.76(a)(1), 19 CFR 210.76(a)(1), for modifying the 
remedial orders. Accordingly, the Commission has issued orders 
modifying the remedial orders previously issued in this investigation.
    This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) and section 210.76(a)(1) of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.76(a)(1)).

    By order of the Commission.


[[Page 67250]]


    Issued: December 14, 2009.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-30141 Filed 12-17-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P