In the Matter of Certain Connecting Devices (“Quick Clamps”) for Use With Modular Compressed Air Conditioning Units, Including Filters, Regulators, and Lubricators (“Frl's”) That Are Part of Larger Pneumatic Systems and the FRL Units They Connect; Notice of Commission Decision To Review a Final Initial Determination; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions on the Issue Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding, 63198-63200 [2010-25801]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
63198
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Notices
The meeting dates are: October
26, 2010, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and October
27, 2010, 9 a.m. to 12 p.m., Austin, TX.
ADDRESSES: The meeting location is:
Suites Hotel Austin Downtown/Town
Lake at 300 South Congress Avenue,
Austin, TX 78704.
DATES:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Anyone
interested may request more
information concerning this meeting
from, or submit written statements to:
Mr. Kirk A. Cordell, Executive Director,
National Center for Preservation
Technology and Training, National Park
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,
645 University Parkway, Natchitoches,
LA 71457—telephone (318) 356–7444.
In addition to U.S. Mail or commercial
delivery, written comments may be sent
by fax to Mr. Cordell at (318) 356–9119.
Before including your address, phone
number, e-mail address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment—including your
personal identifying information—may
be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
Minutes of the meeting will be
available for public inspection no later
than 90 days after the meeting at the
office of the Executive Director,
National Center for Preservation
Technology and Training, National Park
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,
645 University Parkway, Natchitoches,
LA 71457—telephone (318) 356–7444.
Dated: September 14, 2010.
Kirk A. Cordell,
Executive Director, National Center for
Preservation Technology and Training,
National Park Service.
[FR Doc. 2010–25831 Filed 10–13–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–52–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
[CACA–48668, 49502, 49503, 49504;
L51010000 FX0000 LVRWB09B2400
LLCAD09000]
Notice of Availability of the Record of
Decision for the Ivanpah Solar Electric
Generating System Project and
Approved Plan Amendment to the
California Desert Conservation Area
Plan, San Bernardino County, CA
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:30 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
The Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) announces the
availability of the Record of Decision
(ROD)/Approved Plan Amendment (PA)
to the California Desert Conservation
Area (CDCA) Plan for the Ivanpah Solar
Electric Generating System (ISEGS)
Project located in San Bernardino
County, California. The Secretary of the
Interior signed the ROD on October 7,
2010 which constitutes the final
decision of the Department. The ROD/
Approved PA are effective immediately.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the ROD/
Approved PA have been sent to affected
Federal, state, and local government
agencies and to other stakeholders and
are available upon request at the BLM’s
Needles Field Office, 1303 South
Highway 95, Needles, California 92363
or via the Internet at: https://
www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/needles/
nefo_nepa.html.
SUMMARY:
Tom
Hurshman, Project Manager, at 2465
South Townsend Ave., Montrose,
Colorado 81401; phone: (970) 240–5345;
e-mail: caisegs@blm.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The ISEGS
Project was proposed by Solar Partners
I, Solar Partners II, Solar Partners IV,
and Solar Partners VIII, LLC all
subsidiaries of Bright Source Energy
(BSE) who filed four right-of-way (ROW)
applications on public land for
development of the thermal solar power
tower project. The Selected Alternative
approved in the ROD is the Mitigated
Ivanpah 3 Alternative that would
generate 370 MW of electricity and
would be located on approximately
3,472 acres of public land. The BLM
will authorize the project through the
issuance of four ROW grants pursuant to
Title V of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act. The project site is
located entirely on public land
administered by the BLM,
approximately 4.5 miles south of
Primm, Nevada in San Bernardino
County, California.
The CDCA Plan Amendment/Final
Environmental Impact Statement was
published on August 6, 2010 (75 FR
47619), initiating a 30-day protest
period and concurrent 30-day comment
period. Six protests of the proposed
plan amendment and 18 comments on
the project were received. Public
comments and protests did not
significantly change the decisions in the
ROD/Approved PA. The BLM has
consulted with other Federal, State and
local agencies.
The California Governor’s Office of
Planning and Research did not identify
any inconsistencies with the proposed
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
PA and any state plans, policies or
programs.
Because this decision is approved by
the Secretary of the Department of the
Interior, it is not subject to appeal (43
CFR 4.410(a)(3)).
Authority: 40 CFR 1506.6.
Mike Pool,
Deputy Director, Bureau of Land
Management.
[FR Doc. 2010–25858 Filed 10–13–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–40–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–587]
In the Matter of Certain Connecting
Devices (‘‘Quick Clamps’’) for Use With
Modular Compressed Air Conditioning
Units, Including Filters, Regulators,
and Lubricators (‘‘Frl’s’’) That Are Part
of Larger Pneumatic Systems and the
FRL Units They Connect; Notice of
Commission Decision To Review a
Final Initial Determination; Schedule
for Filing Written Submissions on the
Issue Under Review and on Remedy,
the Public Interest, and Bonding
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review
the final initial determination (‘‘ID’’) on
remand issued by the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) and
denied motions to file reply and surreply briefs in connection with the
petitions for review.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark B. Rees, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–3116. 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
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM
14OCN1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Notices
contacting the Commission’s TDD
terminal on (202) 205–1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Commission instituted this investigation
on November 13, 2006, based on a
complaint filed by Norgren, Inc.
(‘‘Norgren’’) of Littleton, Colorado. 71 FR
66193 (Nov. 13, 2006). An amended
complaint was filed on October 25,
2006. A supplement to the complaint
was filed on November 1, 2006. The
amended 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, or the sale within the
United States after importation of
certain devices for modular compressed
air conditioning units and the FRL units
they connect by reason of infringement
of claims 1–9 of U.S. Patent No.
5,372,392 (‘‘the ’392 patent’’). The
amended complaint also alleged that a
domestic industry exists with regard to
the ’392 patent under subsection (a)(2)
of section 337. The amended complaint
named SMC Corp. of Japan; SMC
Corporation of America of Indianapolis,
Indiana (collectively, ‘‘SMC’’); AIRTAC
of China; and MFD Pneumatics (‘‘MFD’’)
of Chicago, Illinois as the respondents
and requested a limited exclusion order
and a cease and desist order. On July 13,
2007, the Commission determined not
to review an ID terminating the
investigation with respect to MFD and
AIRTAC on the basis of a consent order
stipulation and consent order.
On February 13, 2008, the ALJ issued
his final ID finding no violation of
section 337. Specifically, the ALJ found
that there had been an importation of
SMC’s accused products and that none
of the accused products infringe the
asserted claims of the ’392 patent. He
also found that the asserted claims are
not invalid due to obviousness. He
further found that Norgren satisfies the
domestic industry requirement with
respect to the ’392 patent. On February
25, 2008, the ALJ issued a
recommended determination on remedy
and bonding in the event the
Commission reversed his finding of no
violation of section 337.
On April 18, 2008, the Commission
determined not to review the ID and
terminated the investigation based on
the finding of no violation of section
337. 73 FR 21157 (Apr. 18, 2008).
Norgren appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit (‘‘the
Court’’).
On May 26, 2009, the Court issued its
judgment, reversing-in-part the
Commission’s claim construction,
reversing the Commission’s
determination of noninfringement, and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:30 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
vacating the Commission’s
determination of nonobviousness.
Norgren Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, No.
2008–1415 (Fed.Cir. May 26, 2009). The
Court remanded the investigation with
instructions for the Commission to
evaluate obviousness in the first
instance based upon the Court’s
construction of the claim term
‘‘generally rectangular ported flange.’’
Following receipt of the Court’s
September 9, 2009, mandate, the
Commission ordered the investigation
remanded to the Chief ALJ for
designation of a presiding ALJ to
conduct proceedings in accordance with
the Court’s judgment. The Chief Judge
reassigned the investigation to the ALJ
who presided over the original
investigation. The ALJ held an
evidentiary hearing on April 21, 2010, at
which all parties were represented. The
parties also fully briefed the merits.
On August 5, 2010, the ALJ issued the
final ID on remand in which he
determined that the asserted claims are
not invalid for obviousness. SMC and
the Commission investigative attorney
(‘‘IA’’) have petitioned for review of the
ID. Norgren has filed a response in
opposition to the petitions. The IA and
Norgren have also moved to file reply
and sur-reply briefs, respectively, in
connection with the petitions for
review.
Having examined the record of this
investigation, including the final ID on
remand, the petitions for review, the
response in opposition to the petitions,
and the motions for leave to file a reply
to the response and a sur-reply to the
reply to the response, the Commission
has determined to review the ID on the
issue of obviousness and has
determined to deny the motions for
additional briefing.
On review, the Commission requests
written submissions on the issue under
review, particularly the sub-issues of (a)
whether the SMC old-style clamp is
generally rectangular and (b) whether
adding a hinge to one side of a generally
rectangular clamp would have been
obvious to one skilled in the art in 1993.
The Commission also requests that the
parties include in their submissions
responses to the following queries, with
supporting citations to the evidentiary
record:
1. Is the ID’s finding that the SMC oldstyle clamp is not ‘‘generally
rectangular’’ contrary to the Court’s
holding in Norgren Inc. v. Int’l Trade
Comm’n, No. 2008–1415 (Fed.Cir. May
26, 2009) (Slip Op. at 6–7) that the SMC
and Norgren FRL flanges, which seem to
have ‘‘intervening sloped sides’’ and
‘‘octagonal’’ and other appearances, are
‘‘generally rectangular’’?
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
63199
2. How, if at all, does the addition of
a hinge to swing open and closed one
side of a generally rectangular clamp
affect the clamp’s ability to seal as
claimed in the ’392 patent?
3. Applying a flexible standard, please
identify the teaching(s), motivation(s),
or suggestion(s), if any, that existed preinvention that would have made it
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
the art in 1993 to combine a hinge with
a generally rectangular clamp used in a
pressure air system.
In connection with the final
disposition of this investigation, the
Commission may (1) issue an order that
could result in the exclusion of the
subject articles from entry into the
United States and/or (2) issue one or
more cease and desist orders that could
result in respondents being required to
cease and desist from engaging in unfair
acts in the importation and sale of such
articles. Accordingly, the Commission is
interested in receiving written
submissions that address the form of
remedy, if any, that should be ordered.
If a party seeks exclusion of an article
from entry into the United States for
purposes other than entry for
consumption, the party should so
indicate and provide information
establishing that activities involving
other types of entry either are adversely
affecting it or are likely to do so. For
background, see In the Matter of Certain
Devices for Connecting Computers via
Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360,
USITC Pub. No. 2843 (Dec. 1994)
(Commission Opinion).
If the Commission contemplates some
form of remedy, it must consider the
effects of that remedy upon the public
interest. The factors the Commission
will consider include the effect that an
exclusion order and/or cease and desist
orders would have on (1) the public
health and welfare, (2) competitive
conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S.
production of articles that are like or
directly competitive with those that are
subject to investigation, and (4) U.S.
consumers. The Commission is
therefore interested in receiving written
submissions that address the
aforementioned public interest factors
in the context of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form
of remedy, the President has 60 days to
approve or disapprove the
Commission’s action. During this
period, the subject articles would be
entitled to enter the United States under
bond, in an amount determined by the
Commission and prescribed by the
Secretary of the Treasury. The
Commission is therefore interested in
receiving submissions concerning the
E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM
14OCN1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
63200
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Notices
amount of the bond that should be
imposed.
Written Submissions: The parties to
the investigation are requested to file
written submissions on the issue under
review as set forth above. The
submissions should be concise and
thoroughly referenced to the record in
this investigation. Parties to the
investigation, interested government
agencies, and any other interested
parties are encouraged to file written
submissions on the issues of remedy,
the public interest, and bonding. Such
submissions should address the
recommended determination by the ALJ
on remedy and bonding. Complainant
and the IA are also requested to submit
proposed remedial orders for the
Commission’s consideration.
Complainant is further requested to
provide the expiration date of the ’392
patent and state the HTSUS number
under which the accused articles are
imported. The written submissions and
proposed remedial orders must be filed
no later than the close of business on
October 21, 2010. Reply submissions
must be filed no later than the close of
business on November 1, 2010. No
further submissions on these issues will
be permitted unless otherwise ordered
by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions
must file the original document and 12
true copies thereof on or before the
deadlines stated above with the Office
of the Secretary. Any person desiring to
submit a document (or portion thereof)
to the Commission in confidence must
request confidential treatment unless
the information has already been
granted such treatment during the
proceedings. All such requests should
be directed to the Secretary of the
Commission and must include a full
statement of the reasons why the
Commission should grant such
treatment. See section 201.6 of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for
which confidential treatment by the
Commission is sought will be treated
accordingly. All nonconfidential written
submissions will be available for public
inspection at the Office of the Secretary.
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: October 7, 2010.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:30 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010–25801 Filed 10–13–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 731–TA–282 (Third
Review)]
Petroleum Wax Candles From China
United States International
Trade Commission.
ACTION: Scheduling of an expedited fiveyear review concerning the antidumping
duty order on petroleum wax candles
from China.
AGENCY:
The Commission hereby gives
notice of the scheduling of an expedited
review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of
the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.
1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine
whether revocation of the antidumping
duty order on petroleum wax candles
from China would be likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of material
injury within a reasonably foreseeable
time. For further information
concerning the conduct of this review
and rules of general application, consult
the Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure, part 201, subparts A through
E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207,
subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part
207).
DATES: Effective Date: October 4, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Keysha Martinez (202–205–2136), 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 (https://
www.usitc.gov). The public record for
this review may be viewed on the
Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS)
at https://edis.usitc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background.—On October 4, 2010,
the Commission determined that the
domestic interested party group
response to its notice of institution (75
FR 38121, July 1, 2010) of the subject
five-year review was adequate and that
the respondent interested party group
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
response was inadequate. The
Commission did not find any other
circumstances that would warrant
conducting a full review.1 Accordingly,
the Commission determined that it
would conduct an expedited review
pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act.
Staff report.—A staff report
containing information concerning the
subject matter of the review will be
placed in the nonpublic record on
November 10, 2010, and made available
to persons on the Administrative
Protective Order service list for this
review. A public version will be issued
thereafter, pursuant to section
207.62(d)(4) of the Commission’s rules.
Written submissions.—As provided in
section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s
rules, interested parties that are parties
to the review and that have provided
individually adequate responses to the
notice of institution,2 and any party
other than an interested party to the
review may file written comments with
the Secretary on what determination the
Commission should reach in the review.
Comments are due on or before
November 15, 2010 and may not contain
new factual information. Any person
that is neither a party to the five-year
review nor an interested party may
submit a brief written statement (which
shall not contain any new factual
information) pertinent to the review by
November 15, 2010. However, should
the Department of Commerce extend the
time limit for its completion of the final
results of its review, the deadline for
comments (which may not contain new
factual information) on Commerce’s
final results is three business days after
the issuance of Commerce’s results. If
comments contain business proprietary
information (BPI), they must conform
with the requirements of sections 201.6,
207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s
rules. The Commission’s rules do not
authorize filing of submissions with the
Secretary by facsimile or electronic
means, except to the extent permitted by
section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules,
as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8,
2002). Even where electronic filing of a
document is permitted, certain
documents must also be filed in paper
form, as specified in II(C) of the
Commission’s Handbook on Electronic
1 A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the
Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any
individual Commissioner’s statements will be
available from the Office of the Secretary and at the
Commission’s Web site.
2 The Commission has found the response
submitted by the National Candle Association to be
individually adequate. Comments from other
interested parties will not be accepted (see 19 CFR
207.62(d)(2)).
E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM
14OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 198 (Thursday, October 14, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63198-63200]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25801]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-587]
In the Matter of Certain Connecting Devices (``Quick Clamps'')
for Use With Modular Compressed Air Conditioning Units, Including
Filters, Regulators, and Lubricators (``Frl's'') That Are Part of
Larger Pneumatic Systems and the FRL Units They Connect; Notice of
Commission Decision To Review a Final Initial Determination; Schedule
for Filing Written Submissions on the Issue Under Review and on Remedy,
the Public Interest, and Bonding
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review the final initial determination
(``ID'') on remand issued by the presiding administrative law judge
(``ALJ'') and denied motions to file reply and sur-reply briefs in
connection with the petitions for review.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark B. Rees, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3116. 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
[[Page 63199]]
contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation
on November 13, 2006, based on a complaint filed by Norgren, Inc.
(``Norgren'') of Littleton, Colorado. 71 FR 66193 (Nov. 13, 2006). An
amended complaint was filed on October 25, 2006. A supplement to the
complaint was filed on November 1, 2006. The amended 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, or
the sale within the United States after importation of certain devices
for modular compressed air conditioning units and the FRL units they
connect by reason of infringement of claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No.
5,372,392 (``the '392 patent''). The amended complaint also alleged
that a domestic industry exists with regard to the '392 patent under
subsection (a)(2) of section 337. The amended complaint named SMC Corp.
of Japan; SMC Corporation of America of Indianapolis, Indiana
(collectively, ``SMC''); AIRTAC of China; and MFD Pneumatics (``MFD'')
of Chicago, Illinois as the respondents and requested a limited
exclusion order and a cease and desist order. On July 13, 2007, the
Commission determined not to review an ID terminating the investigation
with respect to MFD and AIRTAC on the basis of a consent order
stipulation and consent order.
On February 13, 2008, the ALJ issued his final ID finding no
violation of section 337. Specifically, the ALJ found that there had
been an importation of SMC's accused products and that none of the
accused products infringe the asserted claims of the '392 patent. He
also found that the asserted claims are not invalid due to obviousness.
He further found that Norgren satisfies the domestic industry
requirement with respect to the '392 patent. On February 25, 2008, the
ALJ issued a recommended determination on remedy and bonding in the
event the Commission reversed his finding of no violation of section
337.
On April 18, 2008, the Commission determined not to review the ID
and terminated the investigation based on the finding of no violation
of section 337. 73 FR 21157 (Apr. 18, 2008). Norgren appealed to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (``the Court'').
On May 26, 2009, the Court issued its judgment, reversing-in-part
the Commission's claim construction, reversing the Commission's
determination of noninfringement, and vacating the Commission's
determination of nonobviousness. Norgren Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n,
No. 2008-1415 (Fed.Cir. May 26, 2009). The Court remanded the
investigation with instructions for the Commission to evaluate
obviousness in the first instance based upon the Court's construction
of the claim term ``generally rectangular ported flange.''
Following receipt of the Court's September 9, 2009, mandate, the
Commission ordered the investigation remanded to the Chief ALJ for
designation of a presiding ALJ to conduct proceedings in accordance
with the Court's judgment. The Chief Judge reassigned the investigation
to the ALJ who presided over the original investigation. The ALJ held
an evidentiary hearing on April 21, 2010, at which all parties were
represented. The parties also fully briefed the merits.
On August 5, 2010, the ALJ issued the final ID on remand in which
he determined that the asserted claims are not invalid for obviousness.
SMC and the Commission investigative attorney (``IA'') have petitioned
for review of the ID. Norgren has filed a response in opposition to the
petitions. The IA and Norgren have also moved to file reply and sur-
reply briefs, respectively, in connection with the petitions for
review.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the
final ID on remand, the petitions for review, the response in
opposition to the petitions, and the motions for leave to file a reply
to the response and a sur-reply to the reply to the response, the
Commission has determined to review the ID on the issue of obviousness
and has determined to deny the motions for additional briefing.
On review, the Commission requests written submissions on the issue
under review, particularly the sub-issues of (a) whether the SMC old-
style clamp is generally rectangular and (b) whether adding a hinge to
one side of a generally rectangular clamp would have been obvious to
one skilled in the art in 1993. The Commission also requests that the
parties include in their submissions responses to the following
queries, with supporting citations to the evidentiary record:
1. Is the ID's finding that the SMC old-style clamp is not
``generally rectangular'' contrary to the Court's holding in Norgren
Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, No. 2008-1415 (Fed.Cir. May 26, 2009) (Slip
Op. at 6-7) that the SMC and Norgren FRL flanges, which seem to have
``intervening sloped sides'' and ``octagonal'' and other appearances,
are ``generally rectangular''?
2. How, if at all, does the addition of a hinge to swing open and
closed one side of a generally rectangular clamp affect the clamp's
ability to seal as claimed in the '392 patent?
3. Applying a flexible standard, please identify the teaching(s),
motivation(s), or suggestion(s), if any, that existed pre-invention
that would have made it obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art in 1993 to combine a hinge with a generally rectangular clamp used
in a pressure air system.
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the
Commission may (1) issue an order that could result in the exclusion of
the subject articles from entry into the United States and/or (2) issue
one or more cease and desist orders that could result in respondents
being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the
importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the Commission is
interested in receiving written submissions that address the form of
remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of
an article from entry into the United States for purposes other than
entry for consumption, the party should so indicate and provide
information establishing that activities involving other types of entry
either are adversely affecting it or are likely to do so. For
background, see In the Matter of Certain Devices for Connecting
Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-360, USITC Pub. No. 2843
(Dec. 1994) (Commission Opinion).
If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must
consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The
factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an
exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders would have on (1) the
public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S.
economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly
competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S.
consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written
submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in
the context of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the President has 60
days to approve or disapprove the Commission's action. During this
period, the subject articles would be entitled to enter the United
States under bond, in an amount determined by the Commission and
prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Commission is
therefore interested in receiving submissions concerning the
[[Page 63200]]
amount of the bond that should be imposed.
Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation are requested
to file written submissions on the issue under review as set forth
above. The submissions should be concise and thoroughly referenced to
the record in this investigation. Parties to the investigation,
interested government agencies, and any other interested parties are
encouraged to file written submissions on the issues of remedy, the
public interest, and bonding. Such submissions should address the
recommended determination by the ALJ on remedy and bonding. Complainant
and the IA are also requested to submit proposed remedial orders for
the Commission's consideration. Complainant is further requested to
provide the expiration date of the '392 patent and state the HTSUS
number under which the accused articles are imported. The written
submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than
the close of business on October 21, 2010. Reply submissions must be
filed no later than the close of business on November 1, 2010. No
further submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise
ordered by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document
and 12 true copies thereof on or before the deadlines stated above with
the Office of the Secretary. Any person desiring to submit a document
(or portion thereof) to the Commission in confidence must request
confidential treatment unless the information has already been granted
such treatment during the proceedings. All such requests should be
directed to the Secretary of the Commission and must include a full
statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such
treatment. See section 201.6 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by
the Commission is sought will be treated accordingly. All
nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public
inspection at the Office of the Secretary.
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: October 7, 2010.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-25801 Filed 10-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
