Certain Refrigerators and Components Thereof; Notice of the Commission's Final Determination of No Violation of Section 337, Extension of Target Date, Termination of the Investigation, 7520-7522 [2010-3252]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
7520
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2010 / Notices
on February 27, 2009 and March 11,
2009. 74 FR 12377–78 (Mar. 24, 2009).
The complaint, as supplemented,
alleged violations of section 337 in the
importation into the United States, the
sale for importation, or the sale within
the United States after importation of
certain digital cameras by reason of
infringement of several claims of United
States Patent Nos. 5,731,852 and
6,229,695. The complaint named
Eastman Kodak Company of Rochester,
New York (‘‘Kodak’’) as respondent.
On January 8, 2010, Samsung and
Kodak filed a joint motion to terminate
the investigation in its entirety based on
the execution of a settlement agreement.
On January 20, 2010, the Commission
investigative attorney filed a response in
support of the motion to terminate the
investigation.
On January 21, 2010, the ALJ issued
the subject ID (Order No. 19)
terminating the investigation. None of
the parties petitioned for review of the
ID. The Commission has determined not
to review the ID. Accordingly, this
investigation is terminated.
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(h) of the Commission’s
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.42(h)).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: February 12, 2010.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010–3248 Filed 2–18–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–687]
In the Matter of Certain Video Displays,
Components Thereof, and Products
Containing Same; Notice of
Commission Decision Not To Review
an Initial Determination Granting
Complainant’s Motion To File a Second
Amended Complaint and To Amend
the Notice of Investigation
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD 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. 12) of the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’)
granting complainant’s motion to file a
second amended complaint and to
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:05 Feb 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
amend the notice of investigation in the
above-captioned investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Clint Gerdine, Esq., 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 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 September 16, 2009, based on a
complaint filed by LG Electronics, Inc.
(‘‘LGE’’) of Korea. 74 FR 47616. The
complaint, as amended, 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 video displays,
components thereof, and products
containing same by reason of
infringement of certain claims of U.S.
Patent Nos. 5,790,096; 5,537,612;
5,459,522; and 7,154,564. The
complaint further alleges the existence
of a domestic industry. The
Commission’s notice of investigation
named the following respondents: Funai
Electric Company, Ltd. of Japan; Funai
Corporation, Inc. of Rutherford, New
Jersey; P&F USA, Inc. of Alpharetta,
Georgia; and Vizio, Inc. of Irvine,
California.
On November 25, 2009, complainant
filed a motion for leave to file a second
amended complaint and to amend the
notice of investigation to add the
following respondents to the
investigation: AmTran Technology Co.,
Ltd. of Taiwan; and AmTran Logistics,
Inc. of Irvine, California (collectively
‘‘AmTran’’).
On January 8, 2010, the ALJ issued
the subject ID granting complainant’s
motion for leave to file a second
amended complaint and to amend the
notice of investigation. On January 20,
2010, the ALJ issued an order (Order
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
No. 13) suspending the current
procedural schedule of the investigation
until a new one can be set in the second
half of February 2010. On January 21,
2010, Amtran petitioned for review of
the ID. On January 26, 2010, the
Commission investigative attorney and
LGE each filed a response in opposition
to Amtran’s petition for review. The
Commission has determined not to
review this ID. The Commission notes
that the ALJ has the authority to move
the hearing dates and target date to
avoid any resulting prejudice to
AmTran being added as a respondent
over four months after institution of the
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
sections 210.14, 210.42(c), and
210.43(d) of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.14,
210.42(c), 210.43(d).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: February 12, 2010.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010–3250 Filed 2–18–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–632]
Certain Refrigerators and Components
Thereof; Notice of the Commission’s
Final Determination of No Violation of
Section 337, Extension of Target Date,
Termination of the Investigation
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined that there
is no violation of Section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. * 1337) by
LG Electronics, Inc.; LG Electronics,
USA, Inc.; and LG Electronics
Monterrey Mexico, S.A., De, CV. The
target date of the investigation is
extended to February 12, 2010. The
investigation is terminated.
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 presiding
Administrative Law Judge’s (‘‘ALJ’’)
Initial Determinations (‘‘ID’’) and all
other non-confidential documents filed
in connection with this investigation are
E:\FR\FM\19FEN1.SGM
19FEN1
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2010 / Notices
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: On
February 26, 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
Corporation of Benton Harbor,
Michigan; and Maytag Corporation of
Benton Harbor, Michigan (collectively,
‘‘Whirlpool’’). The complaint, as
supplemented, alleged 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 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.
LG supported the motion. On June 9,
2009, the ALJ issued an ID, Order No.
8, terminating the investigation, in part,
as to the ‘730 and ‘980 patents. 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:05 Feb 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
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. The ‘130 patent is the sole
patent remaining in this investigation.
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,
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 ALJ’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.
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
7521
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.
On October 26, 2009, Whirlpool filed
a petition for review challenging the
RID’s conclusion of non-infringement
and obviousness. LG also filed a
contingent petition for review
challenging the ALJ’s findings
concerning non-obviousness and his
conclusion that a domestic industry
exists. On November 3, 2009, LG filed
a response to Whirlpool’s petition. On
November 4, 2009, Whirlpool filed a
response to LG’s petition. On November
6, 2009, the IA filed a combined
response to both petitions.
On December 14, 2009, the
Commission issued a Notice
determining to review the RID in its
entirety and requesting written
submissions from the parties regarding
the issues under review, particularly
concerning the validity of claim 2 of the
‘130 patent, as well regarding issues of
remedy, the public interest, bonding. 74
FR 67250–1 (Dec. 18, 2009). The parties
filed initial submissions in response to
the Commission’s Notice on December
30, 2009, and reply submissions on
January 7, 2010.
Having examined the record of this
investigation, including the ALJ’s final
RID, the Commission has determined to
affirm the RID’s determination of no
violation of the ‘130 patent.
Specifically, the Commission has
determined to modify the ALJ’s implied
construction of the claim limitations
‘‘the auger moves ice pieces from the ice
storage bin through the bottom opening
for dispensing from the ice storage bin’’
and ‘‘ice crushing region.’’ The
Commission has also determined to
reverse a portion of the ALJ’s
determination of non-infringement and
find that the accused side-by-side
E:\FR\FM\19FEN1.SGM
19FEN1
7522
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2010 / Notices
models infringe claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 9
of the ‘130 patent.
The Commission has determined to
affirm the remainder of the ALJ’s
findings. Specifically, the Commission
affirms the ALJ’s finding that the
accused side-by-side model refrigerators
do not infringe claim 8 of the ‘130
patent. The Commission also affirms the
ALJ’s finding that the accused French
Door model refrigerators do not infringe
any of the asserted claims of the ‘130
patent. The Commission further affirms
the ALJ’s finding that claims 1, 2 4, 6,
and 9 of the ‘130 patent are invalid for
obviousness with several modifications
to the analysis concerning claims 1 and
2. The Commission also affirms the
ALJ’s finding that claim 8 is not invalid
for obviousness. Finally, the
Commission affirms the ALJ’s finding
that there is a domestic industry.
The target date of the investigation
was February 9, 2010. Due to inclement
weather, the Federal government was
closed from Monday, February 8
through Thursday, February 11, 2010.
The target date is, therefore, extended to
Friday, February 12, 2010, pursuant to
Commission Rule 210.51(a) (19 CFR
210.51(a)).
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 of the Commission’s
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.42–46).
Issued: February 12, 2010.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010–3252 Filed 2–18–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND
WATER COMMISSION, UNITED
STATES AND MEXICO
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
United States Section; Notice of
Availability of the Final Environmental
Impact Statement, Flood Control
Improvements and Partial Levee
Relocation, Presidio Flood Control
Project, Presidio, TX
AGENCY: United States Section,
International Boundary and Water
Commission (USIBWC).
ACTION: Notice of Availability of Final
Environmental Impact Statement.
SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(c)
of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, the
United States Section, International
Boundary and Water Commission
(USIBWC) has prepared a Final
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:05 Feb 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
Environmental Impact Statement (Final
EIS) for flood control improvements to
the Presidio Flood Control Project,
Presidio, Texas (Presidio FCP). The EIS
analyzed potential impacts of the No
Action Alternative and six action
alternatives under consideration. Sitespecific information was used to
evaluate environmental consequences
that may result from implementing
improvements in the upper, middle and
lower reaches of the Presidio FCP. The
following environmental resources were
assessed in the Final EIS: Biological
resources, cultural resources, water
resources, land use, socioeconomic
resources and transportation,
environmental health issues (air quality,
noise, public health, and environmental
hazards), and cumulative impacts.
DATES: The Draft EIS was available for
a 45-day review period, November 20,
2009 to January 12, 2010. Written
comments were incorporated into the
Final EIS. The USIBWC will announce
its decision regarding future actions
within the Presidio FCP in a Record of
Decision to be published in the Federal
Register no sooner than 30 days after
the Environmental Protection Agency
publishes a Notice of Availability for the
Final Environmental Impact Statement,
Flood Control Improvements and Partial
Levee Relocation, USIBWC Presidio
Flood Control Project, Presidio, Texas. A
copy of the Final EIS will be available
for review at the City of Presidio
Library, 2440 O’Reilly Street, Presidio,
Texas 79845, and will also be posted at
the USIBWC Web site at https://
www.ibwc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Daniel Borunda, Acting Division Chief,
Environmental Management Division,
USIBWC, 4171 North Mesa Street, C–
100, El Paso, Texas 79902 or e-mail:
danielborunda@ibwc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Final
EIS analyzed potential effects of the No
Action Alternative and six action
alternatives for flood control
improvement alternatives for the
Presidio FCP. The following six action
alternatives were taken into
consideration: (1) Retaining the current
levee alignment, repairing structural
levee damages and raising some levee
segments as required to ensure full
protection from a 25-year flood event;
(2) 100-year flood protection of the City
of Presidio and agricultural lands along
the Presidio FCP by raising the levee
system along its entire length and
current alignment; (3) raising the entire
levee system for 100-year flood
protection, retaining current levee
alignment in the upper and middle
reaches of the Presidio FCP but partially
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
relocating approximately 3.4 miles of
the levee in the lower reach; (4) 100year flood protection of the City of
Presidio by raising the levee system in
the upper and middle reaches of the
Presidio FCP, in conjunction with a new
1.3-mile spur levee starting at mile 9.2
to connect the raised levee section to
elevated terrain south of the City of
Presidio; a 25-year flood protection
would be retained in the lower reach
along agricultural lands; (5) 100-year
flood protection of the City of Presidio
by raising in place the levee system
along the upper and middle reaches of
the Presidio FCP, constructing a new
1.4-mile spur levee at mile 8.5, and
retaining the 25-year flood protection in
the lower reach; and (6) raising the levee
along the upstream sections of the levee
system to provide 100-year flood
protection to the City of Presidio and
retaining the 25-year flood protection of
agricultural lands in the lower reach, as
in the two previous alternatives, and
constructing a new 2.9-mile long spur
levee in the middle reach, starting at
levee mile 7.3, along a railroad track.
Preferred Alternative: The USIBWC
has identified Alternative 2, raise the
levee in-place to provide 25-year flood
protection to the City of Presidio and
the adjacent agricultural areas as the
preferred alternative for
implementation. This has also been
identified as the environmentally
preferred alternative.
Dated: February 11, 2010.
Eric Meza,
Legal Adviser.
[FR Doc. 2010–3127 Filed 2–18–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7010–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
[Docket No. OSHA–2009–0042]
Peer Review, Conflict of Interest and
Disclosure Form; Request for the
Office of Management and Budget’s
(OMB) Approval of Information
Collection (Paperwork) Requirements
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Request for public comment.
SUMMARY: OSHA solicits comments
concerning its proposal to extend the
Office of Management and Budget’s
(OMB) approval of the Conflict of
Interest (COI) and Disclosure Form
which is used to determine whether or
not a conflict of interest exists for a
potential peer review panel member.
E:\FR\FM\19FEN1.SGM
19FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 33 (Friday, February 19, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7520-7522]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3252]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-632]
Certain Refrigerators and Components Thereof; Notice of the
Commission's Final Determination of No Violation of Section 337,
Extension of Target Date, Termination of the Investigation
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined that there is no violation of Section 337 of
the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. * 1337) by LG Electronics, Inc.; LG
Electronics, USA, Inc.; and LG Electronics Monterrey Mexico, S.A., De,
CV. The target date of the investigation is extended to February 12,
2010. The investigation is terminated.
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
presiding Administrative Law Judge's (``ALJ'') Initial Determinations
(``ID'') and all other non-confidential documents filed in connection
with this investigation are
[[Page 7521]]
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: On February 26, 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 Corporation of Benton
Harbor, Michigan; and Maytag Corporation of Benton Harbor, Michigan
(collectively, ``Whirlpool''). The complaint, as supplemented, alleged
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 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. LG supported the motion. On June 9, 2009, the ALJ issued an ID,
Order No. 8, terminating the investigation, in part, as to the `730 and
`980 patents. 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. The `130 patent is the sole
patent remaining in this investigation.
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, 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 ALJ'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.
On October 26, 2009, Whirlpool filed a petition for review
challenging the RID's conclusion of non-infringement and obviousness.
LG also filed a contingent petition for review challenging the ALJ's
findings concerning non-obviousness and his conclusion that a domestic
industry exists. On November 3, 2009, LG filed a response to
Whirlpool's petition. On November 4, 2009, Whirlpool filed a response
to LG's petition. On November 6, 2009, the IA filed a combined response
to both petitions.
On December 14, 2009, the Commission issued a Notice determining to
review the RID in its entirety and requesting written submissions from
the parties regarding the issues under review, particularly concerning
the validity of claim 2 of the `130 patent, as well regarding issues of
remedy, the public interest, bonding. 74 FR 67250-1 (Dec. 18, 2009).
The parties filed initial submissions in response to the Commission's
Notice on December 30, 2009, and reply submissions on January 7, 2010.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the
ALJ's final RID, the Commission has determined to affirm the RID's
determination of no violation of the `130 patent.
Specifically, the Commission has determined to modify the ALJ's
implied construction of the claim limitations ``the auger moves ice
pieces from the ice storage bin through the bottom opening for
dispensing from the ice storage bin'' and ``ice crushing region.'' The
Commission has also determined to reverse a portion of the ALJ's
determination of non-infringement and find that the accused side-by-
side
[[Page 7522]]
models infringe claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 9 of the `130 patent.
The Commission has determined to affirm the remainder of the ALJ's
findings. Specifically, the Commission affirms the ALJ's finding that
the accused side-by-side model refrigerators do not infringe claim 8 of
the `130 patent. The Commission also affirms the ALJ's finding that the
accused French Door model refrigerators do not infringe any of the
asserted claims of the `130 patent. The Commission further affirms the
ALJ's finding that claims 1, 2 4, 6, and 9 of the `130 patent are
invalid for obviousness with several modifications to the analysis
concerning claims 1 and 2. The Commission also affirms the ALJ's
finding that claim 8 is not invalid for obviousness. Finally, the
Commission affirms the ALJ's finding that there is a domestic industry.
The target date of the investigation was February 9, 2010. Due to
inclement weather, the Federal government was closed from Monday,
February 8 through Thursday, February 11, 2010. The target date is,
therefore, extended to Friday, February 12, 2010, pursuant to
Commission Rule 210.51(a) (19 CFR 210.51(a)).
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 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 210.42-46).
Issued: February 12, 2010.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-3252 Filed 2-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
