In the Matter of Certain Printing and Imaging Devices and Components Thereof; Notice of Commission Final Determination of No Violation of Section 337; Termination of the Investigation, 5399-5400 [2011-1981]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2011 / Notices
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
Notice of Receipt of Complaint;
Solicitation of Comments Relating to
the Public Interest
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has received a complaint
entitled In Re Certain Liquid Crystal
Display Devices, Products Containing
Same, and Methods for Using the Same,
DN 2781; the Commission is soliciting
comments on any public interest issues
raised by the complaint.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the
Commission, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–2000. The public version of the
complaint can be accessed on the
Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS)
at https://edis.usitc.gov, and 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 (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. Hearingimpaired 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 has received a complaint
filed on behalf of Sharp Corporation on
January 24, 2011. The complaint alleges
violations of section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the
importation into the United States, the
sale for importation, and the sale within
the United States after importation of
certain liquid crystal display devices,
products containing same, and methods
for using the same. The complaint
names as respondents AU Optronics
Corp. of Hsinchu, Taiwan; Au Optronics
Corporation America of Houston, TX;
BenQ America Corp. of Irvine, CA;
BenQ Corp. of Taipei, Taiwan; Haier
America Trading LLC of New York, NY;
Haier Group Co. of Qingdao, China; LG
Electronics Inc. of Seoul, Korea; LG
Electronics U.S.A., Inc. of Englewood
Cliffs, NJ; SANYO Electric Co. Ltd., of
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:38 Jan 28, 2011
Jkt 223001
Osaka, Japan; SANYO North America
Corp. of San Diego, CA; TCL Corp. of
Guangdong Province, China; TTE
Technology, Inc. of Indianapolis, IN;
and VIZIO, Inc. of Irvine, CA.
The complainant, proposed
respondents, other interested parties,
and members of the public are invited
to file comments, not to exceed five
pages in length, on any public interest
issues raised by the complaint.
Comments should address whether
issuance of an exclusion order and/or a
cease and desist order in this
investigation would negatively affect the
public health and welfare in the United
States, competitive conditions in the
United States economy, the production
of like or directly competitive articles in
the United States, or United States
consumers.
In particular, the Commission is
interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles
potentially subject to the orders are used
in the United States;
(ii) Identify any public health, safety,
or welfare concerns in the United States
relating to the potential orders;
(iii) Indicate the extent to which like
or directly competitive articles are
produced in the United States or are
otherwise available in the United States,
with respect to the articles potentially
subject to the orders; and
(iv) Indicate whether Complainant,
Complainant’s licensees, and/or third
party suppliers have the capacity to
replace the volume of articles
potentially subject to an exclusion order
and a cease and desist order within a
commercially reasonable time.
Written submissions must be filed no
later than by close of business, five
business days after the date of
publication of this notice in the Federal
Register. There will be further
opportunities for comment on the
public interest after the issuance of any
final initial determination in this
investigation.
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. Submissions should
refer to the docket number (‘‘Docket No.
2781’’) in a prominent place on the
cover page and/or the first page. The
Commission’s rules authorize filing
submissions with the Secretary by
facsimile or electronic means only to the
extent permitted by section 201.8 of the
rules (see Handbook for Electronic
Filing Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/
secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/
documents/handbook_on_electronic_
filing.pdf). Persons with questions
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
5399
regarding electronic filing should
contact the Secretary (202–205–2000).
Any person desiring to submit a
document to the Commission in
confidence must request confidential
treatment. All such requests should be
directed to the Secretary to the
Commission and must include a full
statement of the reasons why the
Commission should grant such
treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents
for which confidential treatment by the
Commission is properly sought will be
treated accordingly. All nonconfidential
written submissions will be available for
public inspection at the Office of the
Secretary.
This action is taken under the
authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337),
and of sections 201.10 and 210.50(a)(4)
of the Commission’s Rules of Practice
and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10,
210.50(a)(4)).
Issued: January 24, 2011.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011–1967 Filed 1–28–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–690]
In the Matter of Certain Printing and
Imaging Devices and Components
Thereof; Notice of Commission Final
Determination of No Violation of
Section 337; Termination of the
Investigation
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined that no
violation of section 337 occurred in the
above-captioned investigation.
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
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
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\31JAN1.SGM
31JAN1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
5400
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2011 / Notices
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 presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) issued
his final initial determination (‘‘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.
On November 22, 2010, the
Commission determined to review the
ALJ’s ID in part as to the ‘343 and ‘690
patents. The Commission asked for, and
received, briefing on the issues under
review as well as on remedy, the public
interest, and bonding.
Having examined the record of this
investigation, including the ALJ’s final
ID and all the written submissions, the
Commission has determined to affirm
the ALJ’s finding that no section 337
violation occurred with respect to the
‘343 patent, but reverse his finding that
a violation occurred with respect to the
‘690 patent. As to both the ‘343 and ‘690
patents, the Commission has
determined to reverse the ALJ’s finding
that Ricoh satisfied the economic prong
of the domestic industry requirement of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:38 Jan 28, 2011
Jkt 223001
section 337(a)(3), 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3).
As to the ‘343 patent, the Commission
has determined to modify the ALJ’s
construction of ‘‘a lower edge’’ and
affirm, on modified grounds, his
findings that (1) Oki does not infringe
the asserted claims of the ‘343 patent
and (2) Ricoh does not meet the
technical prong of the domestic industry
requirement. As to the ‘690 patent, the
Commission has determined to reverse
the ALJ’s finding that claims 1, 5, 9, and
13 of the ‘690 patent are not anticipated
by the prior art. The Commission has
determined to deny the outstanding
request for oral argument, filed on
December 23, 2010, as moot. The
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
sections 210.42–50 of the Commission’s
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.42–50).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: January 25, 2011.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011–1981 Filed 1–28–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree
Under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA)
Notice is hereby given that on January
25, 2011, a proposed Consent Decree in
The United States of America and the
Coeur d’Alene Tribe v. Lookout
Mountain Mining and Milling Company
and Silver Bowl, Inc., Civ. No. 11–0029,
was lodged with the United States
District Court for the District of Idaho.
Plaintiffs the United States and the
Tribe filed a complaint concurrently
with the Consent Decree alleging that
Defendants Lookout Mountain Mining
and Milling Company and Silver Bowl,
Inc. are liable pursuant to Section 107(a)
of CERCLA for response costs incurred
and to be incurred by the United States
and for natural resources damages in
connection with releases of hazardous
substances at or from Operable Unit 3 of
the Bunker Hill Mining and
Metallurgical Complex Superfund Site
(Bunker Hill Site) in northern Idaho.
The proposed Consent Decree grants the
Defendants a covenant not to sue for
response costs, as well as natural
resource damages, in connection with
the Bunker Hill Site. The Coeur d’Alene
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
Tribe is a co-trustee of injured natural
resources at the Bunker Hill Site and a
party to the proposed Consent Decree.
The settlement is based on a
determination that Defendants have no
ability to pay. The settlement requires,
among other things, that Defendants
assign their interest in insurance
policies to a trust, established for the
benefit of EPA and the natural resource
trustees, and pay two percent of net
smelter returns generated from any
future mining activities.
For thirty (30) days after the date of
this publication, the Department of
Justice will receive comments relating to
the Consent Decree. Comments should
be addressed to the Assistant Attorney
General, Environment and Natural
Resources Division, and either e-mailed
to pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov or
mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S.
Department of Justice, Washington, DC
20044–7611. In either case, the
comments should refer to U.S., et al. v.
Lookout Mountain Mining and Milling
Company and Silver Bowl, Inc., Civ. No.
11–0029 and D.J. Ref. No. 90–11–3–128/
11.
During the comment period, the
Consent Decree may be examined on the
following Department of Justice Web
site: https://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/
Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the
Consent Decree may also be obtained by
mail from the Consent Decree Library,
P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of
Justice, Washington, DC 20044–7611, or
by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia
Fleetwood (tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov),
fax no. (202) 514–0097, phone
confirmation number (202) 514–1547. In
requesting a copy from the Consent
Decree Library, please enclose a check
in the amount of $18.75 (25 cents per
page reproduction cost) payable to the
United States Treasury or, if by e-mail
or fax, forward a check in that amount
to the Consent Decree Library at the
stated address.
Maureen Katz,
Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement
Section, Environment and Natural Resources
Division.
[FR Doc. 2011–1979 Filed 1–28–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–15–P
E:\FR\FM\31JAN1.SGM
31JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 20 (Monday, January 31, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5399-5400]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1981]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-690]
In the Matter of Certain Printing and Imaging Devices and
Components Thereof; Notice of Commission Final Determination of No
Violation of Section 337; 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 no violation of section 337 occurred in
the above-captioned investigation.
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 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
[[Page 5400]]
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 presiding administrative law judge
(``ALJ'') issued his final initial determination (``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.
On November 22, 2010, the Commission determined to review the ALJ's
ID in part as to the `343 and `690 patents. The Commission asked for,
and received, briefing on the issues under review as well as on remedy,
the public interest, and bonding.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the
ALJ's final ID and all the written submissions, the Commission has
determined to affirm the ALJ's finding that no section 337 violation
occurred with respect to the `343 patent, but reverse his finding that
a violation occurred with respect to the `690 patent. As to both the
`343 and `690 patents, the Commission has determined to reverse the
ALJ's finding that Ricoh satisfied the economic prong of the domestic
industry requirement of section 337(a)(3), 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3). As to
the `343 patent, the Commission has determined to modify the ALJ's
construction of ``a lower edge'' and affirm, on modified grounds, his
findings that (1) Oki does not infringe the asserted claims of the `343
patent and (2) Ricoh does not meet the technical prong of the domestic
industry requirement. As to the `690 patent, the Commission has
determined to reverse the ALJ's finding that claims 1, 5, 9, and 13 of
the `690 patent are not anticipated by the prior art. The Commission
has determined to deny the outstanding request for oral argument, filed
on December 23, 2010, as moot. The 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 sections 210.42-50 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 210.42-50).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: January 25, 2011.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-1981 Filed 1-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
