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 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 http://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 (http:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. 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, http://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 http://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 205–1810. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation on 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: http://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 http://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this 
investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket 
(EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised 
that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the 
Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation 
on 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