Certain Video Displays, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Determination to Review a Final Initial Determination in Part and Set a Schedule for Filing Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding, 73126-73128 [2010-29911]
Download as PDF
73126
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Notices
collection approved under OMB Control
Number 1024–0216.
DATES: Public comments on this
Information Collection Request (ICR)
will be accepted on or before December
29, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Please send your comments
and suggestions on this ICR to the Desk
Officer for the Department of the
Interior at OMB–OIRA at (202) 395–
5806 (fax) or
OIRA_DOCKET@OMB.eop.gov (e-mail).
Please also send a copy of your
comments on the ICR to Dr. Bruce
Peacock, NPS Social Science Division,
1201 Oakridge Drive, Fort Collins, CO
80525; or at Bruce_Peacock@nps.gov (email).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jennifer Hoger-Russell, Park Studies
Unit, College of Natural Resources,
University of Idaho, P.O. Box 441139,
Moscow, ID 83844–1139; Phone: (208)
885–4806; Fax: (208) 885–4216;
jhoger@uidaho.edu (e-mail).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
I. Abstract
The National Park Service Act of
1916, 38 Stat 535, 16 U.S.C. 1, et seq.,
requires that the NPS preserve national
parks for the use and enjoyment of
present and future generations. At the
field level, this means resource
preservation, public education, facility
maintenance and operation, and
physical developments as are necessary
for public use, health, and safety. Other
Federal mandates (National
Environmental Policy Act and NPS
Management Policies) require visitor
use data in the impact assessment of
development on users and resources as
part of each park’s general management
plan. The Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 (Pub. L.
103–62) requires that the NPS develop
goals to improve program effectiveness
and public accountability and to
measure performance related to these
goals. The Visitor Survey Card (VSC)
project measures performance toward
those goals through a short visitor
survey card. The project is an element
of the NPS Strategic Plan and the
Department of the Interior (DOI)
Strategic Plan.
The NPS has used the VSC to conduct
surveys at approximately 330 National
Park Service units annually since 1998.
The purpose of the VSC is to measure
visitors’ opinions about park facilities,
services, and recreational opportunities
in each park unit and System-wide. This
effort is required by GPRA and other
NPS and DOI strategic planning efforts.
Data from the proposed survey is
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:57 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
needed to assess performance regarding
NPS GPRA goals IIa1A and IIb1.
In addition, the survey collects data to
support the DOI Strategic Plan goal on
visitor satisfaction with the value for
entrance fees paid to access public lands
managed by the DOI. NPS performance
on all goals measured in this study will
contribute to DOI Department-wide
performance reports. Results of the VSC
will also be used by park managers to
improve visitor services at the
approximately 330 units of the National
Park System where the survey is
administered.
The VSC is a component of the Visitor
Services Project, which is funded by the
NPS through a cooperative agreement
with the Park Studies Unit at the
University of Idaho, and has been in use
since 1998.
II. Data
OMB Number: 1024–0216.
Title: National Park Service Visitor
Survey Card.
Type of Request: This is a renewal of
a currently approved collection.
Respondent Obligation: Voluntary.
Frequency of Collection: One-time per
respondent.
Description of respondents: Visitors to
approximately 330 NPS units.
Estimated average number of
respondents: 132,000 visitors who
accept the survey card (92,400 nonrespondents and 39,600 respondents)
and 1,188 visitors who refuse to take the
survey card but are willing to answer
the two demographic questions and the
overall satisfaction question.
Estimated average burden hours per
response: 1 minute for non-respondents,
3 minutes for respondents, and 2
minutes for visitors who refuse to take
the survey card but are willing to
answer the two demographic questions
and the overall satisfaction question.
Estimated annual reporting burden:
3,540 hours.
III. Request for Comments
We are inviting comments concerning
this ICR on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the agency to perform its duties,
including whether the information is
useful; (b) the accuracy of the agency’s
estimate of the burden of the proposed
collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, usefulness, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
burden on the respondents, including
the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information
technology.
Comments that you submit in
response to this notice are a matter of
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
public record. 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.
Dated: November 23, 2010.
Robert Gordon,
Information Collection Clearance Officer,
National Park Service.
[FR Doc. 2010–29974 Filed 11–26–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–52–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–687]
Certain Video Displays, Components
Thereof, and Products Containing
Same; Notice of Commission
Determination to Review a Final Initial
Determination in Part and Set a
Schedule for Filing Written
Submissions on the Issues 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
in part the final initial determination
(‘‘ID’’) issued by the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on
September 17, 2010, in the abovecaptioned investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Liberman, 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
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\29NON1.SGM
29NON1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Notices
persons are advised that information on
this matter can be obtained by
contacting the Commission’s TDD
terminal on (202) 205–1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
investigation was instituted on
September 16, 2009, based on a
complaint filed by LG Electronics, Inc.
(‘‘LG’’), alleging a violation of section
337 in the importation, sale for
importation, and sale within the United
States after importation of certain video
displays, components thereof, or
products containing same that infringe
one or more of claims 24 and 25 of U.S.
Patent No. 5,790,096; claims 1–9 of U.S.
Patent No. 5,537,612; claim 1 of U.S.
Patent No. 5,459,522; claims 1–5 and
7–16 of U.S. Patent No. 7,154,564. 74 FR
47616 (2009) Complainant named Funai
Electric Company, Ltd. of Osaka, Japan,
Funai Corporation, Inc. of Rutherford,
New Jersey, P&F USA, Inc. of
Alpharetta, Georgia (collectively,
‘‘Funai’’), and Vizio, Inc. of Irvine,
California (‘‘Vizio’’) as respondents. On
January 8, 2010, the presiding ALJ
issued an ID granting Complainant’s
motion for leave to file a second
amended complaint and amend the
Notice of Investigation to, inter alia, add
AmTran Technology Co. Ltd. and
AmTran Logistics, Inc. as respondents
to the investigation. Order No. 12
(unreviewed by the Commission).
Subsequently, respondents Funai
Electric Company, Ltd., Funai
Corporation, Inc., and P&F USA, Inc.
were terminated from the investigation
based on a settlement agreement.
The evidentiary hearing on violation
of Section 337 was held from June 9,
2010 through June 21, 2010. On
September 17, 2010, the ALJ issued his
final ID finding a violation of section
337. All the parties to the investigation,
including the Commission investigative
attorney (IA), filed timely petitions for
review of various portions of the final
ID, as well as timely responses to the
petitions.
Having examined the record in this
investigation, including the ALJ’s final
ID, the petitions for review, and the
responses thereto, the Commission has
determined to review the ID in part. In
particular, the Commission has
determined to review: (1) The ID’s
finding that dependent claims 4, 6, and
7 of the ‘612 patent are not invalid as
anticipated or obvious; (2) the ID’s
findings and conclusions with respect to
independent claim 5 of the ‘564 patent.
The Commission has determined not to
review the remainder of the final ID.
On review, the Commission requests
briefing on the above-listed issues based
on the evidentiary record. The
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:57 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
Commission is particularly interested in
responses to the following questions:
(1) With respect to the ‘612 patent:
(a) Does the record evidence show,
clearly and convincingly, that claim 4 is
anticipated by: (i) The CableData HTU
device (RPX–4); (ii) U.S. Patent No.
4,896,354 (‘‘the ‘354 patent’’); and (iii)
U.S. Patent No. 4,930,160 (‘‘the ‘160
patent’’)?
(b) Does the record evidence show,
clearly and convincingly, that claim 4 is
obvious in view of any of the above
prior art references alleged to anticipate
claim 4?
(c) Does the record evidence show,
clearly and convincingly, that claim 6 is
anticipated by: (i) the ‘160 patent; (ii)
U.S. Patent No. 4,510,623 (‘‘the ‘623
patent’’); (iii) U.S. Patent No. 5,033,085
(‘‘the ‘085 patent’’); and (iv) the ‘354
patent?
(d) Does the record evidence show,
clearly and convincingly, that claim 6 is
obvious in view of any of the above
prior art references alleged to anticipate
claim 6?
(e) Does the record evidence show,
clearly and convincingly, that claim 7 is
anticipated by: (i) The ‘160 patent; (ii)
the ‘623 patent; (iii) the ‘085 patent; and
(iv) the ‘354 patent?
(f) Does the record evidence show,
clearly and convincingly, that claim 7 is
obvious in view of any of the above
prior art references alleged to anticipate
claim 7?
(2) With respect to the ‘564 patent:
(a) Does the record evidence show
that claim 5 is infringed?
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 the respondent 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
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
73127
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 U.S. Trade
Representative, as delegated by the
President, has 60 days to approve or
disapprove the Commission’s action.
See Presidential Memorandum of July
21, 2005. 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005).
During this period, the subject articles
would be entitled to enter the United
States under bond, in an amount
determined by the Commission. The
Commission is therefore interested in
receiving submissions concerning the
amount of the bond that should be
imposed.
Written Submissions: The parties to
the investigation are requested to file
written submissions on the issues under
review. 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
Commission investigative attorney are
also requested to submit proposed
remedial orders for the Commission’s
consideration. Complainant is further
requested to provide the expiration date
of the involved patents and state the
HTSUS numbers 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 December
3, 2010. Reply submissions must be
filed no later than the close of business
on December 10, 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
E:\FR\FM\29NON1.SGM
29NON1
73128
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Notices
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: November 19, 2010.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010–29911 Filed 11–26–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–690]
Certain Printing and Imaging Devices
and Components Thereof; Notice of
Commission Determination To Reviewin-Part a Final Determination Finding a
Violation of Section 337; Schedule for
Filing Written Submissions on the
Issues 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 a
portion of the final initial determination
(‘‘ID’’) issued by the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on
September 23, 2010 finding a violation
of section 337 and to request briefing on
the issues under review and on remedy,
the public interest, and bonding.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Daniel E. Valencia, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–1999. 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
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:57 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
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 October 26, 2009, based on a
complaint filed by Ricoh Company, Ltd.
of Tokyo, Japan; Ricoh Americas
Corporation of West Caldwell, New
Jersey; and Ricoh Electronics, Inc. of
Tustin, California (collectively ‘‘Ricoh’’).
74 FR 55065 (Oct. 26, 2009). The
complaint alleged, inter alia, violations
of section 337 in the importation into
the United States, the sale for
importation, and the sale within the
United States after importation of
certain printing and imaging devices
and components thereof by reason of
infringement of U.S. Patent Nos.
6,209,048 (‘‘the ‘048 patent’’); 6,212,343
(‘‘the ‘343 patent’’); 6,388,771 (‘‘the ‘771
patent’’); 5,764,866 (‘‘the ‘866 patent);
and 5,863,690 (‘‘the ‘690 patent’’). The
complaint named Oki Data Corporation
of Tokyo, Japan and Oki Data Americas,
Inc. of Mount Laurel, New Jersey
(collectively ‘‘Oki’’) as respondents.
On September 23, 2010, the ALJ
issued his final ID finding that Oki
violated section 337 in the importation
into the United States, the sale for
importation, and the sale within the
United States after importation of
certain printing and imaging devices
and components thereof by reason of
infringement of several claims in the
‘690 patent. The ALJ found that Oki has
not violated section 337 with respect to
the ‘048, ‘343, ‘771, and ‘866 patents.
Along with the ID, the ALJ issued a
recommended determination on remedy
and bonding (‘‘RD’’). Complainant Ricoh,
respondent Oki, and the Commission
investigative attorney (‘‘IA’’) filed
petitions for review of the ID on October
6, 2010. Ricoh, Oki, and the IA each
filed responses to the petitions for
review on October 14, 2010.
Having examined the record of this
investigation, including the ALJ’s final
ID, the petitions for review, and the
responses thereto, the Commission has
determined to review the final ID in
part. In particular, the Commission has
determined to review all findings and
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
conclusions relating to whether a
violation of section 337 has occurred
with respect to the ‘343 and ‘690
patents.
The parties are requested to brief their
positions on the issues under review
with reference to the applicable law and
the evidentiary record. In connection
with its review, the Commission is
particularly interested in responses to
the following questions:
The ‘343 Patent
(1) The Commission has determined
to review all findings relating to the
limitation ‘‘a direction orthogonal to a
longitudinal direction of the developing
roller,’’ as recited in the asserted claims
of the ‘343 patent.
(a) Please state your position on the
meaning of ‘‘a longitudinal direction of
the developing roller,’’ as recited in the
asserted claims. How does your position
differ from the ALJ’s construction?
(b) Specifically, does ‘‘a longitudinal
direction’’ include any line extending
parallel to the central axis of the roller?
Or, does this refer to the central axis
itself?
(c) Please state your position on the
meaning of ‘‘a direction orthogonal to a
longitudinal direction of the developing
roller.’’ Please take into account that the
planar blade is bent along its entire
width, and do not confine your analysis
to two-dimensional cross-sections.
(d) Assuming ‘‘a longitudinal
direction’’ can include any line
extending parallel to the central axis of
the roller, can ‘‘a direction orthogonal’’
refer to a direction that is not
perpendicular to the surface of the
roller, i.e., a tangent extending through
the surface of the roller?
(e) Given the planar shape of the
blade contacts the roller in three
dimensions along the entire width of the
blade, and is bent along the entire width
of the blade, is there any bend that
would not meet the ‘‘direction
orthogonal’’ limitation?
(f) How does your answer to (d)
comport with the preferred embodiment
of the ‘343 patent shown in Figures 8A
and 8B? Is the blade 17 shown in
Figures 8A and 8B bent in ‘‘a direction
orthogonal to a longitudinal direction of
the developing roller?’’
(g) How do your answers to (a)
through (e) affect the ALJ’s findings
regarding infringement, validity, and
domestic industry?
(2) The Commission has determined
to review the ALJ’s construction of ‘‘a
lower edge,’’ as recited in the asserted
claims of the ‘343 patent. The asserted
claims of the ‘343 patent recite, among
other things:
E:\FR\FM\29NON1.SGM
29NON1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 228 (Monday, November 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73126-73128]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29911]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-687]
Certain Video Displays, Components Thereof, and Products
Containing Same; Notice of Commission Determination to Review a Final
Initial Determination in Part and Set a Schedule for Filing Written
Submissions on the Issues 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 in part the final initial
determination (``ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law judge
(``ALJ'') on September 17, 2010, in the above-captioned investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Liberman, 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
[[Page 73127]]
persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by
contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This investigation was instituted on
September 16, 2009, based on a complaint filed by LG Electronics, Inc.
(``LG''), alleging a violation of section 337 in the importation, sale
for importation, and sale within the United States after importation of
certain video displays, components thereof, or products containing same
that infringe one or more of claims 24 and 25 of U.S. Patent No.
5,790,096; claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 5,537,612; claim 1 of U.S.
Patent No. 5,459,522; claims 1-5 and 7-16 of U.S. Patent No. 7,154,564.
74 FR 47616 (2009) Complainant named Funai Electric Company, Ltd. of
Osaka, Japan, Funai Corporation, Inc. of Rutherford, New Jersey, P&F
USA, Inc. of Alpharetta, Georgia (collectively, ``Funai''), and Vizio,
Inc. of Irvine, California (``Vizio'') as respondents. On January 8,
2010, the presiding ALJ issued an ID granting Complainant's motion for
leave to file a second amended complaint and amend the Notice of
Investigation to, inter alia, add AmTran Technology Co. Ltd. and AmTran
Logistics, Inc. as respondents to the investigation. Order No. 12
(unreviewed by the Commission). Subsequently, respondents Funai
Electric Company, Ltd., Funai Corporation, Inc., and P&F USA, Inc. were
terminated from the investigation based on a settlement agreement.
The evidentiary hearing on violation of Section 337 was held from
June 9, 2010 through June 21, 2010. On September 17, 2010, the ALJ
issued his final ID finding a violation of section 337. All the parties
to the investigation, including the Commission investigative attorney
(IA), filed timely petitions for review of various portions of the
final ID, as well as timely responses to the petitions.
Having examined the record in this investigation, including the
ALJ's final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto,
the Commission has determined to review the ID in part. In particular,
the Commission has determined to review: (1) The ID's finding that
dependent claims 4, 6, and 7 of the `612 patent are not invalid as
anticipated or obvious; (2) the ID's findings and conclusions with
respect to independent claim 5 of the `564 patent. The Commission has
determined not to review the remainder of the final ID.
On review, the Commission requests briefing on the above-listed
issues based on the evidentiary record. The Commission is particularly
interested in responses to the following questions:
(1) With respect to the `612 patent:
(a) Does the record evidence show, clearly and convincingly, that
claim 4 is anticipated by: (i) The CableData HTU device (RPX-4); (ii)
U.S. Patent No. 4,896,354 (``the `354 patent''); and (iii) U.S. Patent
No. 4,930,160 (``the `160 patent'')?
(b) Does the record evidence show, clearly and convincingly, that
claim 4 is obvious in view of any of the above prior art references
alleged to anticipate claim 4?
(c) Does the record evidence show, clearly and convincingly, that
claim 6 is anticipated by: (i) the `160 patent; (ii) U.S. Patent No.
4,510,623 (``the `623 patent''); (iii) U.S. Patent No. 5,033,085 (``the
`085 patent''); and (iv) the `354 patent?
(d) Does the record evidence show, clearly and convincingly, that
claim 6 is obvious in view of any of the above prior art references
alleged to anticipate claim 6?
(e) Does the record evidence show, clearly and convincingly, that
claim 7 is anticipated by: (i) The `160 patent; (ii) the `623 patent;
(iii) the `085 patent; and (iv) the `354 patent?
(f) Does the record evidence show, clearly and convincingly, that
claim 7 is obvious in view of any of the above prior art references
alleged to anticipate claim 7?
(2) With respect to the `564 patent:
(a) Does the record evidence show that claim 5 is infringed?
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 the
respondent 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 U.S. Trade
Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve
or disapprove the Commission's action. See Presidential Memorandum of
July 21, 2005. 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). During this period, the
subject articles would be entitled to enter the United States under
bond, in an amount determined by the Commission. The Commission is
therefore interested in receiving submissions concerning the amount of
the bond that should be imposed.
Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation are requested
to file written submissions on the issues under review. 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 Commission
investigative attorney are also requested to submit proposed remedial
orders for the Commission's consideration. Complainant is further
requested to provide the expiration date of the involved patents and
state the HTSUS numbers 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 December 3, 2010. Reply submissions
must be filed no later than the close of business on December 10, 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
[[Page 73128]]
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: November 19, 2010.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-29911 Filed 11-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P