In the Matter of Certain Ceramic Capacitors and Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Determination To Review in Part A Final Initial Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest and Bonding, 11275-11277 [2011-4442]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2011 / Notices
(8) A list of known sources of
information on national or regional
prices for the Domestic Like Product or
the Subject Merchandise in the U.S. or
other markets.
(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the
Domestic Like Product, provide the
following information on your firm’s
operations on that product during
calendar year 2010, except as noted
(report quantity data in short tons and
value data in U.S. dollars, f.o.b. plant).
If you are a union/worker group or
trade/business association, provide the
information, on an aggregate basis, for
the firms in which your workers are
employed/which are members of your
association.
(a) Production (quantity) and, if
known, an estimate of the percentage of
total U.S. production of the Domestic
Like Product accounted for by your
firm’s(s’) production;
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to
produce the Domestic Like Product (i.e.,
the level of production that your
establishment(s) could reasonably have
expected to attain during the year,
assuming normal operating conditions
(using equipment and machinery in
place and ready to operate), normal
operating levels (hours per week/weeks
per year), time for downtime,
maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a
typical or representative product mix);
(c) the quantity and value of U.S.
commercial shipments of the Domestic
Like Product produced in your U.S.
plant(s); and
(d) the quantity and value of U.S.
internal consumption/company
transfers of the Domestic Like Product
produced in your U.S. plant(s).
(e) the value of (i) Net sales, (ii) cost
of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit,
(iv) selling, general and administrative
(SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating
income of the Domestic Like Product
produced in your U.S. plant(s) (include
both U.S. and export commercial sales,
internal consumption, and company
transfers) for your most recently
completed fiscal year (identify the date
on which your fiscal year ends).
(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a
trade/business association of U.S.
importers of the Subject Merchandise
from the Subject Country, provide the
following information on your firm’s(s’)
operations on that product during
calendar year 2010 (report quantity data
in short tons and value data in U.S.
dollars). If you are a trade/business
association, provide the information, on
an aggregate basis, for the firms which
are members of your association.
(a) The quantity and value (landed,
duty-paid but not including
antidumping duties) of U.S. imports
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:42 Feb 28, 2011
Jkt 223001
and, if known, an estimate of the
percentage of total U.S. imports of
Subject Merchandise from the Subject
Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’)
imports;
(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S.
port, including antidumping duties) of
U.S. commercial shipments of Subject
Merchandise imported from the Subject
Country; and
(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S.
port, including antidumping duties) of
U.S. internal consumption/company
transfers of Subject Merchandise
imported from the Subject Country.
(11) If you are a producer, an exporter,
or a trade/business association of
producers or exporters of the Subject
Merchandise in the Subject Country,
provide the following information on
your firm’s(s’) operations on that
product during calendar year 2010
(report quantity data in short tons and
value data in U.S. dollars, landed and
duty-paid at the U.S. port but not
including antidumping duties). If you
are a trade/business association, provide
the information, on an aggregate basis,
for the firms which are members of your
association.
(a) Production (quantity) and, if
known, an estimate of the percentage of
total production of Subject Merchandise
in the Subject Country accounted for by
your firm’s(s’) production; and
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to
produce the Subject Merchandise in the
Subject Country (i.e., the level of
production that your establishment(s)
could reasonably have expected to
attain during the year, assuming normal
operating conditions (using equipment
and machinery in place and ready to
operate), normal operating levels (hours
per week/weeks per year), time for
downtime, maintenance, repair, and
cleanup, and a typical or representative
product mix); and
(c) the quantity and value of your
firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of
Subject Merchandise and, if known, an
estimate of the percentage of total
exports to the United States of Subject
Merchandise from the Subject Country
accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports.
(12) Identify significant changes, if
any, in the supply and demand
conditions or business cycle for the
Domestic Like Product that have
occurred in the United States or in the
market for the Subject Merchandise in
the Subject Country after 2004, and
significant changes, if any, that are
likely to occur within a reasonably
foreseeable time. Supply conditions to
consider include technology;
production methods; development
efforts; ability to increase production
(including the shift of production
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
11275
facilities used for other products and the
use, cost, or availability of major inputs
into production); and factors related to
the ability to shift supply among
different national markets (including
barriers to importation in foreign
markets or changes in market demand
abroad). Demand conditions to consider
include end uses and applications; the
existence and availability of substitute
products; and the level of competition
among the Domestic Like Product
produced in the United States, Subject
Merchandise produced in the Subject
Country, and such merchandise from
other countries.
(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of
whether you agree with the above
definitions of the Domestic Like Product
and Domestic Industry; if you disagree
with either or both of these definitions,
please explain why and provide
alternative definitions.
Authority: This review is being conducted
under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act
of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to
section 207.61 of the Commission’s rules.
By order of the Commission.
Issued: February 23, 2011.
William R. Bishop,
Hearings and Meetings Coordinator.
[FR Doc. 2011–4445 Filed 2–28–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–692]
In the Matter of Certain Ceramic
Capacitors and Products Containing
Same; Notice of Commission
Determination To Review in Part A
Final Initial Determination Finding No
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
in part the final initial determination
(‘‘ID’’) issued by the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on
December 22, 2010, finding no violation
of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930,
19 U.S.C. 1337, in this investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–3042. Copies of non-confidential
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\01MRN1.SGM
01MRN1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
11276
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2011 / Notices
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 (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 November 4, 2009, based on a
complaint filed by Murata
Manufacturing Co., Ltd. of Kyoto, Japan
and Murata Electronics North America,
Inc. of Smyrna, Georgia (collectively,
‘‘Murata’’). 74 FR 57193–94 (Nov. 4,
2009). The 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, and the sale within the
United States after importation of
certain ceramic capacitors and products
containing the same by reason of
infringement of various claims of United
States Patent Nos. 6,266,229 (‘‘the ’229
patent’’); 6,014,309 (‘‘the ’309 patent’’);
6,243,254 (‘‘the ’254 patent’’); and
6,377,439 (subsequently terminated
from the investigation). The complaint
named Samsung Electro-Mechanics Co.,
Ltd. of Suwon City, Korea and Samsung
Electro-Mechanics America, Inc. of
Irvine, California (collectively,
‘‘Samsung’’) as respondents.
On December 22, 2010, the ALJ issued
his final ID, finding no violation of
section 337 by Respondents with
respect to any of the asserted claims of
the asserted patents. Specifically, the
ALJ found that the accused products do
not infringe the asserted claims of the
’254 patent. The ALJ also found that
none of the cited references anticipated
the asserted claims and that none of the
cited references rendered the asserted
claims obvious. The ALJ further found
that the asserted claims were not
rendered unenforceable due to
inequitable conduct. The ALJ, however,
found that asserted claims 11–14, 19,
and 20 of the ’254 patent failed to satisfy
the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 for
lack of written description. Likewise,
the ALJ found that the accused products
do not infringe asserted claim 3 of the
’309 patent and that none of the cited
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:42 Feb 28, 2011
Jkt 223001
references anticipated or rendered
obvious the asserted claims. The ALJ
further found that the asserted claim
was not rendered unenforceable due to
inequitable conduct. Similarly, the ALJ
found that the accused products meet
all the limitations of the asserted claims
of the ’229 patent and that the claims
are not rendered unenforceable due to
inequitable conduct. The ALJ further
found that the cited references do not
anticipate the asserted claims but found
that the prior art rendered the asserted
claims obvious. The ALJ concluded that
an industry exists within the United
States that practices the ’254 and ’229
patents but that a domestic industry
does not exist with respect to the ’309
patent as required by 19 U.S.C.
1337(a)(2) and (3).
On January 4, 2011, Murata and the
Commission investigative attorney filed
petitions for review of the ID. That same
day, Samsung filed a contingent petition
for review of the ID. On January 12,
2011, the parties filed responses to the
various petitions and contingent
petition for review.
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. Specifically, the Commission has
determined to review the findings
related to the ’229 patent and in
particular the finding that AAPA
(Applicant Admitted Prior Art) does not
invalidate the asserted claims of the
’229 patent. With respect to the ’309
patent, it is unclear whether the ALJ
made a specific finding that Nakano
discloses a thickness ratio of 0.01 to 10.
ID at 167. To the extent that the ALJ
made such a finding, the Commission
reverses and does not adopt such a
finding as its own. The Commission has
determined not to review the issues
related to the ’309 patent and ’254
patent raised by the petitions for review
and terminates the ’309 and ’254 patents
from the investigation.
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:
1. Can characterizations of the prior
art that patent applicants make in the
specification constitute the ‘‘single
allegedly anticipatory reference
pursuant to Section 102’’? See ID at 139.
Even if those characterizations cannot
constitute such a reference, are
applicants bound by characterizations of
the prior art contained in the
specification? In your response, please
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
consider Pharmastem Therapeutics, Inc.
v. Viacell, Inc., 491 F.3d 1342, 1362
(Fed. Cir. 2007) and Constant v.
Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d
1560, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
2. Assume that patent applicants are
bound by their characterizations as
described above. Have the ’229
applicants made concessions showing
that the asserted claims of the ’229
patent are anticipated or obvious?
Please specify how the alleged applicant
admissions disclose that a single prior
art reference discloses each limitation of
the asserted claims and/or that a
combination of prior art references
render the claims obvious. Please cite
only record evidence and relevant legal
authority to support your position.
3. Assume that the specification can
constitute a single allegedly anticipatory
reference pursuant to Section 102.
Please provide an analysis as to
anticipation and obviousness. Please
cite only record evidence and relevant
legal authority to support your position.
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(s) 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 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 (December 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
E:\FR\FM\01MRN1.SGM
01MRN1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2011 / Notices
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 if a remedy is ordered.
Written Submissions: The parties to
the investigation are requested to file
written submissions on the issues
identified in this notice. 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 with respect to
the ’29 patent. Complainants and the IA
are also requested to submit proposed
remedial orders for the Commission’s
consideration. Complainants are also
requested to state the date that the
patent expires and the HTSUS numbers
under which the accused products are
imported. The written submissions and
proposed remedial orders must be filed
no later than close of business on
Tuesday, March 8, 2011. Reply
submissions must be filed no later than
the close of business on Tuesday, March
15, 2011. 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 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 19 CFR 210.6. 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:42 Feb 28, 2011
Jkt 223001
sections 210.42–46 and 210.50 of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 210.42–46 and
210.50).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: February 23, 2011.
William R. Bishop,
Hearings and Meetings Coordinator.
[FR Doc. 2011–4442 Filed 2–28–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–728]
In the Matter of Collaborative System
Products and Components Thereof (II);
Notice of Commission Determination
Not To Review an Initial Determination
Terminating the Investigation on the
Basis of a Settlement Agreement;
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 not to
review the final initial determination
(‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 20) issued by the
presiding administrative law judge
(‘‘ALJ’’) on January 24, 2011 granting a
consent motion to terminate the abovecaptioned investigation in its entirety
based upon a settlement agreement.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jia
Chen, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
708–4737. Copies of non-confidential
documents filed in connection with this
investigation are or will be available for
inspection during official business
hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the
Office of the Secretary, U.S.
International Trade Commission, 500 E
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436,
telephone (202) 205–2000. General
information concerning the Commission
may also be obtained by accessing its
Internet server at https://www.usitc.gov.
The public record for this investigation
may be viewed on the Commission’s
electronic docket (EDIS) at https://
edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired
persons are advised that information on
this matter can be obtained by
contacting the Commission’s TDD
terminal on (202) 205–1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Commission instituted this investigation
on July 19, 2010, based on a complaint
filed by eInstruction Corporation
(‘‘eInstruction’’) of Denton, Texas on
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
11277
May 12, 2010. 75 FR 41889 (Jul. 19,
2010). The 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, and the sale within the
United States after importation of
certain collaborative system products
and components thereof by reason of
infringement of various claims of United
States Patent No. 6,930,673. The
complaint, as amended, named the
following respondents: Promethean Inc.
of Alpharetta, Georgia; Promethean
Technology Shenzhen Ltd. of Shanghai,
China; and Promethean Ltd. of
Blackburn, Lancashire, United
Kingdom.
On January 4, 2011, eInstruction filed
a consent motion to terminate the
instant investigation on the ground that
the parties have reached a settlement
agreement pursuant to Commission Rule
210.21(b). On January 24, 2011, the
Commission investigative attorney filed
a response supporting the motion. On
January 24, 2011, the ALJ issued the
subject ID granting the motion. No
petitions for review of the ID were filed.
The Commission has determined not
to review the subject ID.
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 210.21(b) and 210.42(h) of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 210.21(b), 210.42(h)).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: February 23, 2011.
William R. Bishop,
Hearings and Meetings Coordinator.
[FR Doc. 2011–4441 Filed 2–28–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[OMB Number 1122–0010]
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Extension of a Currently
Approved Collection
60-Day Notice of Information
Collection Under Review: Semi-Annual
Progress Report for Grantees From the
Grants To Support Tribal Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault Coalitions
Program.
ACTION:
The Department of Justice, Office on
Violence Against Women (OVW) will be
submitting the following information
collection request to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be
E:\FR\FM\01MRN1.SGM
01MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11275-11277]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4442]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-692]
In the Matter of Certain Ceramic Capacitors and Products
Containing Same; Notice of Commission Determination To Review in Part A
Final Initial Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337;
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 December 22, 2010, finding no violation of section 337 of
the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in this investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3042. Copies of non-
confidential
[[Page 11276]]
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 (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 November 4, 2009, based on a complaint filed by Murata Manufacturing
Co., Ltd. of Kyoto, Japan and Murata Electronics North America, Inc. of
Smyrna, Georgia (collectively, ``Murata''). 74 FR 57193-94 (Nov. 4,
2009). The 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, and the sale within the United States after
importation of certain ceramic capacitors and products containing the
same by reason of infringement of various claims of United States
Patent Nos. 6,266,229 (``the '229 patent''); 6,014,309 (``the '309
patent''); 6,243,254 (``the '254 patent''); and 6,377,439 (subsequently
terminated from the investigation). The complaint named Samsung
Electro-Mechanics Co., Ltd. of Suwon City, Korea and Samsung Electro-
Mechanics America, Inc. of Irvine, California (collectively,
``Samsung'') as respondents.
On December 22, 2010, the ALJ issued his final ID, finding no
violation of section 337 by Respondents with respect to any of the
asserted claims of the asserted patents. Specifically, the ALJ found
that the accused products do not infringe the asserted claims of the
'254 patent. The ALJ also found that none of the cited references
anticipated the asserted claims and that none of the cited references
rendered the asserted claims obvious. The ALJ further found that the
asserted claims were not rendered unenforceable due to inequitable
conduct. The ALJ, however, found that asserted claims 11-14, 19, and 20
of the '254 patent failed to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112
for lack of written description. Likewise, the ALJ found that the
accused products do not infringe asserted claim 3 of the '309 patent
and that none of the cited references anticipated or rendered obvious
the asserted claims. The ALJ further found that the asserted claim was
not rendered unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. Similarly, the
ALJ found that the accused products meet all the limitations of the
asserted claims of the '229 patent and that the claims are not rendered
unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. The ALJ further found that
the cited references do not anticipate the asserted claims but found
that the prior art rendered the asserted claims obvious. The ALJ
concluded that an industry exists within the United States that
practices the '254 and '229 patents but that a domestic industry does
not exist with respect to the '309 patent as required by 19 U.S.C.
1337(a)(2) and (3).
On January 4, 2011, Murata and the Commission investigative
attorney filed petitions for review of the ID. That same day, Samsung
filed a contingent petition for review of the ID. On January 12, 2011,
the parties filed responses to the various petitions and contingent
petition for review.
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.
Specifically, the Commission has determined to review the findings
related to the '229 patent and in particular the finding that AAPA
(Applicant Admitted Prior Art) does not invalidate the asserted claims
of the '229 patent. With respect to the '309 patent, it is unclear
whether the ALJ made a specific finding that Nakano discloses a
thickness ratio of 0.01 to 10. ID at 167. To the extent that the ALJ
made such a finding, the Commission reverses and does not adopt such a
finding as its own. The Commission has determined not to review the
issues related to the '309 patent and '254 patent raised by the
petitions for review and terminates the '309 and '254 patents from the
investigation.
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:
1. Can characterizations of the prior art that patent applicants
make in the specification constitute the ``single allegedly
anticipatory reference pursuant to Section 102''? See ID at 139. Even
if those characterizations cannot constitute such a reference, are
applicants bound by characterizations of the prior art contained in the
specification? In your response, please consider Pharmastem
Therapeutics, Inc. v. Viacell, Inc., 491 F.3d 1342, 1362 (Fed. Cir.
2007) and Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1570
(Fed. Cir. 1988).
2. Assume that patent applicants are bound by their
characterizations as described above. Have the '229 applicants made
concessions showing that the asserted claims of the '229 patent are
anticipated or obvious? Please specify how the alleged applicant
admissions disclose that a single prior art reference discloses each
limitation of the asserted claims and/or that a combination of prior
art references render the claims obvious. Please cite only record
evidence and relevant legal authority to support your position.
3. Assume that the specification can constitute a single allegedly
anticipatory reference pursuant to Section 102. Please provide an
analysis as to anticipation and obviousness. Please cite only record
evidence and relevant legal authority to support your position.
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(s) 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 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
(December 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
[[Page 11277]]
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 if a remedy is ordered.
Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation are requested
to file written submissions on the issues identified in this notice.
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 with respect to the '29 patent. Complainants and the
IA are also requested to submit proposed remedial orders for the
Commission's consideration. Complainants are also requested to state
the date that the patent expires and the HTSUS numbers under which the
accused products are imported. The written submissions and proposed
remedial orders must be filed no later than close of business on
Tuesday, March 8, 2011. Reply submissions must be filed no later than
the close of business on Tuesday, March 15, 2011. 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
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 19 CFR 210.6. 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 and 210.50 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42-46 and 210.50).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: February 23, 2011.
William R. Bishop,
Hearings and Meetings Coordinator.
[FR Doc. 2011-4442 Filed 2-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
