In the Matter of Certain Protective Cases and Components Thereof; Notice of Institution of Investigation; Institution of Investigation Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337, 38417-38419 [2011-16361]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 126 / Thursday, June 30, 2011 / Notices
from the effective date of publication in
the Federal Register unless, prior to the
end of the 2-year period, the BLM
publishes a Federal Register notice
terminating the segregation.
The lands to be segregated are
identified in the proposed withdrawal
notice that was published in the Federal
Register on April 21, 2011 (76 FR
22414).
Michael D. Nedd,
Assistant Director, Minerals and Realty
Management.
[FR Doc. 2011–16429 Filed 6–29–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–84–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–694]
In the Matter of Certain Multimedia
Display and Navigation Devices and
Systems, Components Thereof, and
Products Containing Same; Notice of
Commission Determination That No
Violation of Section 337 Exists;
Termination of Investigation
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to affirm,
on modified grounds, the final initial
determination (‘‘ID’’) issued by the
presiding administrative law judge
(‘‘ALJ’’) on December 16, 2010, finding
no violation of section 337 in the abovecaptioned 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
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.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:24 Jun 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
The
Commission instituted the instant
investigation on December 16, 2009,
based on a complaint filed by Pioneer
Corporation of Tokyo, Japan and
Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc. of Long
Beach, California (collectively,
‘‘Pioneer’’). 74 FR 66676 (Dec. 16, 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 multimedia
display and navigation devices and
systems, components thereof, and
products containing same by reason of
infringement of various claims of United
States Patent Nos. 5,365,448 (‘‘the ’448
patent’’), 5,424,951 (‘‘the ’951 patent’’),
and 6,122,592 (‘‘the ’592 patent’’). The
complaint named Garmin International,
Inc. of Olathe, Kansas, Garmin
Corporation of Taiwan (collectively,
‘‘Garmin’’) and Honeywell International
Inc. of Morristown, New Jersey
(‘‘Honeywell’’) as the proposed
respondents. Honeywell was
subsequently terminated from the
investigation.
On December 16, 2010, the ALJ issued
a final ID. In his final ID, the ALJ found
no violation of section 337 by Garmin.
Specifically, the ALJ found that the
accused products do not infringe claims
1 and 2 of the ’448 patent, claims 1 and
2 of the ’951 patent, or claims 1 and 2
of the ’592 patent. The ALJ found that
the ’592 patent was not proven to be
invalid and that Pioneer has established
a domestic industry under 19 U.S.C.
1337(a)(3)(C). On February 23, 2011, the
Commission determined to review the
final ID in part. On April 18, 2011, the
Commission determined to extend the
target date and requested supplemental
briefing.
Having examined the record of this
investigation, including the ALJ’s final
ID and the submissions of the parties,
the Commission has determined to
affirm, on modified grounds, the ALJ’s
finding that Garmin has not violated
section 337. In particular, the
Commission has determined to reverse
the ALJ’s finding that Garmin’s products
do not infringe the asserted claims of
the ’951 patent, affirm his finding that
Garmin’s products do not infringe the
asserted claims of the ’592 patent,
reverse his finding that the asserted
claims of the ’592 patent are not invalid
under the written description
requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112, first
paragraph, and reverse his finding that
Pioneer has established a licensingbased domestic industry for the ’951
and ‘592 patents. The ‘448 patent is no
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
38417
longer asserted. 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).
Issued: June 24, 2011.
By order of the Commission.
James R. Holbein,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011–16317 Filed 6–29–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Inv. No. 337–TA–780]
In the Matter of Certain Protective
Cases and Components Thereof;
Notice of Institution of Investigation;
Institution of Investigation Pursuant to
19 U.S.C. 1337
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that a
complaint was filed with the U.S.
International Trade Commission on May
25, 2011, under section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C.
1337, on behalf of Otter Products, LLC
of Fort Collins, Colorado. A supplement
was filed on June 16, 2011. The
complaint, as supplemented, alleges
violations of section 337 based upon the
importation into the United States, the
sale for importation, and the sale within
the United States after importation of
certain protective cases and components
thereof by reason of infringement of
certain claims of U.S. Patent No.
7,933,122 (‘‘the ’122 patent’’); U.S.
Patent No. D600,908 (‘‘the ’908 patent’’);
U.S. Patent No. D617,784 (‘‘the ’784
patent’’); U.S. Patent No. D615,536 (‘‘the
’536 patent’’); U.S. Patent No. D617,785
(‘‘the ’785 patent’’); U.S. Patent No.
D634,741 (‘‘the ’741 patent’’); U.S.
Patent No. D636,386 (‘‘the ’386 patent’’);
and U.S. Trademark Registration No.
3,788,534 (‘‘the ’534 trademark’’); U.S.
Trademark Registration No. 3,788,535
(‘‘the ’535 trademark’’); U.S. Trademark
Registration No. 3,623,789 (‘‘the ’789
trademark’’); and U.S. Trademark
Registration No. 3,795,187 (‘‘the ’187
trademark’’). The complaint further
alleges that an industry in the United
States exists as required by subsection
(a)(2) of section 337.
The complainant requests that the
Commission institute an investigation
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\30JNN1.SGM
30JNN1
38418
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 126 / Thursday, June 30, 2011 / Notices
and, after the investigation, issue an
exclusion order and cease and desist
orders.
The complaint, except for
any confidential information contained
therein, is 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., Room
112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone
(202) 205–2000. Hearing impaired
individuals are advised that information
on this matter can be obtained by
contacting the Commission’s TDD
terminal on (202) 205–1810. Persons
with mobility impairments who will
need special assistance in gaining access
to the Commission should contact the
Office of the Secretary at (202) 205–
2000. General information concerning
the Commission may also be obtained
by accessing its Internet server 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The
Office of Unfair Import Investigations,
U.S. International Trade Commission,
telephone (202) 205–2560.
ADDRESSES:
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Authority: The authority for institution of
this investigation is contained in section 337
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and
in section 210.10 of the Commission’s Rules
of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10
(2011).
Scope of Investigation: Having
considered the complaint, the U.S.
International Trade Commission, on
June 24, 2011, Ordered That—
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, an investigation be instituted
to determine whether there is a
violation of subsections (a)(1)(B) and (C)
of section 337 in the importation into
the United States, the sale for
importation, or the sale within the
United States after importation of
certain protective cases and components
thereof that infringe the ‘908 patent; the
‘784 patent; the ‘536 patent; the ‘785
patent; the ‘741 patent; the ‘386 patent;
one or more of claims 1, 5–7, 13, 15, 17,
19–21, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30–32, 37, 38, 42,
and 44 of the ‘122 patent; the ‘534
trademark; the ‘535 trademark; the ‘789
trademark; and the ‘187 trademark, and
whether an industry in the United
States exists as required by subsection
(a)(2) of section 337;
(2) For the purpose of the
investigation so instituted, the following
are hereby named as parties upon which
this notice of investigation shall be
served:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:24 Jun 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
(a) The complainant is: Otter
Products, LLC, 1 Old Town Square,
Suite 303, Fort Collins, CO 80524.
(b) The respondents are the following
entities alleged to be in violation of
section 337, and are the parties upon
which the complaint is to be served:
A.G. Findings and Mfg. Co., Inc., d/b/a
Ballistic, 1133 Sawgrass Corp.
Parkway, Sunrise, FL 33323.
AFC Trident Inc., 14270 Albers Way,
Chino, CA 91710.
Alibaba.com Hong Kong Ltd., 699 Wang
Shang Road, Binjiang District,
Hangzhou 310052, China.
Anbess Electronics Co. Ltd., 1F, Block
B, Building 4, Cui Feng Hao Yuan,
ShuiJing, BuJi, LongGang, Shenzhen,
GD, 518112, China.
Cellairis Franchise, Inc., 6485 Shiloh
Road, Suite B100, Alpharette, GA
30005.
Cellet Products, 14530 Anson Avenue,
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670.
DHgate.com, 6F Dimeng Commercial
Building No. 3–2, Hua Yuan Road,
Haidian District, Beijing, China
100191.
Griffin Technology, Inc., 1930 Air Lane
Drive, Nashville, TN 37210.
Guangzhou Evotech Industry Co., Ltd.,
No. 28 E–05, Baoli Center Square,
Jiansheda Ma Road, Guangzhou,
Guangdong, China (Mainland)
510000.
Hardcandy Cases LLC, d/b/a GUMDROP
LLC, 2730 Gateway Oaks Drive 100,
Sacramento, CA 95833.
Hoffco Brands, Inc., d/b/a Celltronix,
4860 Ward Road, Wheat Ridge, CO
80033.
Hong Kong Better Technology Group
Ltd., 10A, Hongling Building,
Hongling South Road, Futian District,
Shenzhen, China 518000.
Hong Kong HJJ Co. Ltd., Room 4, Block
2 West, SEG Technology Park,
HuaQiang North Road, Futian District,
Shenzhen, China 518028.
Hypercel Corporation, d/b/a Naztech
Technologies, 28010 Industry Drive,
Valencia, CA 91355.
InMotion Entertainment, 4801 Executive
Park Court, Suite 100, Jacksonville, FL
32216.
MegaWatts Computers, LLC, 3501 South
Sheridan Road, Tulsa, OK 74145.
National Cellular, 5620 1st Avenue,
Third Floor, Brooklyn, NY 11220.
OEMBargain.com, P.O. Box 7132,
Wantagh, NY 11793.
One Step Up Ltd., d/b/a Lifeworks
Technology Group LLC, 1412
Broadway 3rd Floor, New York, NY
10018.
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Papaya Holdings Ltd., 8/F, CNT
Commercial Bldg., 302 Queen’s Road,
Central, Hong Kong.
Quanyun Electronics Co., Ltd., Floor 1,
Workshop No. 1, Weihua Industrial
Areas, Tongsheng Community, Dalang
Street, Baoan District, Shenzhen,
China (Mainland) 518000.
ShenZhen Star & Way Trade Co., Ltd.,
d/b/a DHgate Sellers Best8168 and
Julyoung, Guangzhou Chaoshanglong
Company, Room 901, No. 43–3 Siheng
Street, Shuiyin Road, Tianhe District,
Guangzhou City, China 510000.
Sinatech Industrial Co., Ltd., Room
3005, #570, FangCun, LiWan District,
GuangZhou City, China.
SmileCase, 3226 Ridgeway Place,
Windsor Mill, MD 21244.
Suntel Global Investment Ltd., 2F–D5,
Jian Fa Square, 111#, Ji Chang Road,
Baiyun District, Guangzhou, China.
TheCaseInPoint.com, 793 Marian Court,
Titusville, FL 32780.
TheCaseSpace, 215 East Foothills
Parkway #D–003, Fort Collins, CO
80525.
Topter Technology Co. Ltd., 2nd Floor,
Building B, Jinkajin Industrial Zone,
Minying Industrial Park, Shuitian
Village, Shiyan Town, Shenzhen
Guangdong, China.
Trait Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.,
416—419RM, 305# Sufa Building,
Huafa North Road, Futian District,
Shenzhen, China.
(c) The Office of Unfair Import
Investigations, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Suite
401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(3) For the investigation so instituted,
the Honorable Paul J. Luckern, Chief
Administrative Law Judge, U.S.
International Trade Commission, shall
designate the presiding Administrative
Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the
notice of investigation must be
submitted by the named respondents in
accordance with section 210.13 of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to
19 CFR 201.16(d)–(e) and 210.13(a),
such responses will be considered by
the Commission if received not later
than 20 days after the date of service by
the Commission of the complaint and
the notice of investigation. Extensions of
time for submitting responses to the
complaint and the notice of
investigation will not be granted unless
good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely
response to each allegation in the
complaint and in this notice may be
deemed to constitute a waiver of the
right to appear and contest the
E:\FR\FM\30JNN1.SGM
30JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 126 / Thursday, June 30, 2011 / Notices
allegations of the complaint and this
notice, and to authorize the
administrative law judge and the
Commission, without further notice to
the respondent, to find the facts to be as
alleged in the complaint and this notice
and to enter an initial determination
and a final determination containing
such findings, and may result in the
issuance of an exclusion order or a cease
and desist order or both directed against
the respondent.
Issued: June 24, 2011.
By order of the Commission.
James R. Holbein,
Secretary to the Commission.
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
United States v. George’s Foods, LLC,
et. al.; Proposed Final Judgment and
Competitive Impact Statement
Notice is hereby given pursuant to the
Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act,
15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h), that a proposed
Final Judgment, Stipulation and
Competitive Impact Statement have
been filed with the United States
District Court for the Western District of
Virginia in United States of America v.
George’s Foods, LLC, et. al., Civil Action
No. 5:11–cv–00043. On May 10, 2011,
the United States filed a Complaint
alleging that George’s Foods, LLC;
George’s Family Farms, LLC; and
George’s, Inc. (collectively, ‘‘George’s’’)
acquisition of Tyson Foods, Inc.’s
(‘‘Tyson’s’’) Harrisonburg, Virginia
chicken processing complex,
consummated May 7, 2011, violated
Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.
18. The proposed Final Judgment, filed
on June 23, 2011, requires the
Defendants to make certain capital
improvements to the Harrisonburg
facility.
Copies of the Complaint, proposed
Final Judgment and Competitive Impact
Statement are available for inspection at
the Department of Justice, Antitrust
Division, Antitrust Documents Group,
450 Fifth Street, NW., Suite 1010,
Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: 202–
514–2481), on the Department of
Justice’s Web site at https://
www.usdoj.gov/atr, and at the Office of
the Clerk of the United States District
Court for the Western District of
Virginia. Copies of these materials may
be obtained from the Antitrust Division
upon request and payment of the
copying fee set by Department of Justice
regulations.
16:24 Jun 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement.
United States District Court for the
Western District of Virginia,
Harrisonburg Division
[FR Doc. 2011–16361 Filed 6–29–11; 8:45 am]
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Public comment is invited within 60
days of the date of this notice. Such
comments, and responses thereto, will
be published in the Federal Register
and filed with the Court. Comments
should be directed to William H.
Stallings, Chief, Transportation, Energy
and Agriculture Section, Antitrust
Division, Department of Justice,
Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: 202–
514–9323).
United States of America, Department of
Justice, Antitrust Division, 450 Fifth Street,
NW., Suite 8000, Washington, DC 20530,
Plaintiff, v. George’s Foods, LLC, P.O. Drawer
G, Springdale, Arkansas 72765, George’s
Family Farms, LLC, P.O. Drawer G,
Springdale, Arkansas 72765, and George’s,
Inc, 402 West Robinson Avenue, Springdale,
Arkansas 72764, Defendants.
Civil Action No.: 5:11–cv–00043
Complaint
The United States of America, acting
under the direction of the Attorney
General of the United States, brings this
civil antitrust action for equitable relief
against George’s Foods, LLC; George’s
Family Farms, LLC; and George’s, Inc.
(collectively, ‘‘George’s’’) for violating
Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.
18. This lawsuit challenges George’s
acquisition of Tyson Foods, Inc.’s
(‘‘Tyson’s’’) Harrisonburg, Virginia
chicken processing complex,
consummated May 7, 2011 (the
‘‘Transaction’’). The Transaction
violates Section 7 of the Clayton Act
because its effect may be substantially to
lessen competition for the services of
broiler growers operating in and around
the Shenandoah Valley area of Virginia
and West Virginia. The United States
alleges as follows:
I. Nature of Action
1. The United States learned about the
Transaction on or about March 18, 2011,
when Tyson and George’s publicly
announced George’s intent to buy
Tyson’s Harrisonburg chicken
processing complex. The United States
subsequently opened an investigation
into the proposed deal, and issued Civil
Investigative Demands (‘‘CIDs’’) on
April 18, 2011, seeking information on
the potential competitive effects of the
acquisition and George’s proposed
business justifications for purchasing
the plant. After serving the CIDs, the
United States engaged in numerous
discussions with the parties to seek the
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
38419
production of relevant information as
quickly as possible. These discussions
were continuing at the close of business
on Friday, May 6, 2011. On Saturday,
May 7, 2011, without any notice to the
United States and before responding to
the CIDs, George’s and Tyson entered
into an asset purchase agreement and
simultaneously closed the Transaction.
The parties undertook this action even
though they knew that the United States
had serious concerns about the
Transaction and had requested to be
notified prior to the parties’ closing the
Transaction.
2. George’s and Tyson are competing
chicken processors, each operating
facilities involved in the production,
processing, and distribution of
‘‘broilers,’’ which are chickens raised for
meat products. George’s and Tyson
vigorously compete with each other not
only in the sale of chicken products, but
also for the services of farmers, called
‘‘growers,’’ who care for and raise chicks
from the time they are hatched until the
time they are ready for slaughter.
3. Processors compete for growers in
areas where the processors’ plants are
close together. Prior to consummation of
the Transaction, the Shenandoah Valley
region of Virginia and West Virginia was
one such area where George’s and Tyson
competed head-to-head for broiler
grower services. There, George’s and
Tyson operated facilities about 30 miles
away from each other—George’s with a
processing facility in Edinburg, Virginia
and a feed mill in Harrisonburg,
Virginia; and Tyson with a processing
facility in Harrisonburg, Virginia and a
feed mill in Mount Jackson, Virginia
(between Harrisonburg and Edinburg).
Transportation costs are such that
processors typically contract with
growers within limited geographic areas
surrounding their facilities. Because of
their close proximity, the area from
which Tyson and George’s recruit
growers for their respective Shenandoah
Valley facilities overlap substantially.
For growers in that region, Tyson and
George’s are two of only three
processors to whom growers can sell
their services.
4. On May 7, 2011, George’s entered
into an agreement with Tyson under
which George’s acquired Tyson’s
Harrisonburg, Virginia chicken
processing complex. The complex is
capable of processing approximately 32
million chickens per year. Tyson
contracted with over 120 area growers to
support this facility. As a result of the
Transaction, George’s controls
approximately 43% of chicken
processing capacity in the Shenandoah
Valley, with only one other remaining
E:\FR\FM\30JNN1.SGM
30JNN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 126 (Thursday, June 30, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38417-38419]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16361]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Inv. No. 337-TA-780]
In the Matter of Certain Protective Cases and Components
Thereof; Notice of Institution of Investigation; Institution of
Investigation Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the
U.S. International Trade Commission on May 25, 2011, under section 337
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of
Otter Products, LLC of Fort Collins, Colorado. A supplement was filed
on June 16, 2011. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of
section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale
for importation, and the sale within the United States after
importation of certain protective cases and components thereof by
reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,933,122
(``the '122 patent''); U.S. Patent No. D600,908 (``the '908 patent'');
U.S. Patent No. D617,784 (``the '784 patent''); U.S. Patent No.
D615,536 (``the '536 patent''); U.S. Patent No. D617,785 (``the '785
patent''); U.S. Patent No. D634,741 (``the '741 patent''); U.S. Patent
No. D636,386 (``the '386 patent''); and U.S. Trademark Registration No.
3,788,534 (``the '534 trademark''); U.S. Trademark Registration No.
3,788,535 (``the '535 trademark''); U.S. Trademark Registration No.
3,623,789 (``the '789 trademark''); and U.S. Trademark Registration No.
3,795,187 (``the '187 trademark''). The complaint further alleges that
an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection
(a)(2) of section 337.
The complainant requests that the Commission institute an
investigation
[[Page 38418]]
and, after the investigation, issue an exclusion order and cease and
desist orders.
ADDRESSES: The complaint, except for any confidential information
contained therein, is 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., Room 112,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired
individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained
by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons
with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining
access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at
(202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also
be obtained by accessing its Internet server 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Office of Unfair Import
Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202)
205-2560.
Authority: The authority for institution of this investigation
is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended,
and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2011).
Scope of Investigation: Having considered the complaint, the U.S.
International Trade Commission, on June 24, 2011, Ordered That--
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether
there is a violation of subsections (a)(1)(B) and (C) of section 337 in
the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or
the sale within the United States after importation of certain
protective cases and components thereof that infringe the `908 patent;
the `784 patent; the `536 patent; the `785 patent; the `741 patent; the
`386 patent; one or more of claims 1, 5-7, 13, 15, 17, 19-21, 23, 25,
27, 28, 30-32, 37, 38, 42, and 44 of the `122 patent; the `534
trademark; the `535 trademark; the `789 trademark; and the `187
trademark, and whether an industry in the United States exists as
required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the
following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of
investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is: Otter Products, LLC, 1 Old Town Square,
Suite 303, Fort Collins, CO 80524.
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in
violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint
is to be served:
A.G. Findings and Mfg. Co., Inc., d/b/a Ballistic, 1133 Sawgrass Corp.
Parkway, Sunrise, FL 33323.
AFC Trident Inc., 14270 Albers Way, Chino, CA 91710.
Alibaba.com Hong Kong Ltd., 699 Wang Shang Road, Binjiang District,
Hangzhou 310052, China.
Anbess Electronics Co. Ltd., 1F, Block B, Building 4, Cui Feng Hao
Yuan, ShuiJing, BuJi, LongGang, Shenzhen, GD, 518112, China.
Cellairis Franchise, Inc., 6485 Shiloh Road, Suite B100, Alpharette, GA
30005.
Cellet Products, 14530 Anson Avenue, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670.
DHgate.com, 6F Dimeng Commercial Building No. 3-2, Hua Yuan Road,
Haidian District, Beijing, China 100191.
Griffin Technology, Inc., 1930 Air Lane Drive, Nashville, TN 37210.
Guangzhou Evotech Industry Co., Ltd., No. 28 E-05, Baoli Center Square,
Jiansheda Ma Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (Mainland) 510000.
Hardcandy Cases LLC, d/b/a GUMDROP LLC, 2730 Gateway Oaks Drive 100,
Sacramento, CA 95833.
Hoffco Brands, Inc., d/b/a Celltronix, 4860 Ward Road, Wheat Ridge, CO
80033.
Hong Kong Better Technology Group Ltd., 10A, Hongling Building,
Hongling South Road, Futian District, Shenzhen, China 518000.
Hong Kong HJJ Co. Ltd., Room 4, Block 2 West, SEG Technology Park,
HuaQiang North Road, Futian District, Shenzhen, China 518028.
Hypercel Corporation, d/b/a Naztech Technologies, 28010 Industry Drive,
Valencia, CA 91355.
InMotion Entertainment, 4801 Executive Park Court, Suite 100,
Jacksonville, FL 32216.
MegaWatts Computers, LLC, 3501 South Sheridan Road, Tulsa, OK 74145.
National Cellular, 5620 1st Avenue, Third Floor, Brooklyn, NY 11220.
OEMBargain.com, P.O. Box 7132, Wantagh, NY 11793.
One Step Up Ltd., d/b/a Lifeworks Technology Group LLC, 1412 Broadway
3rd Floor, New York, NY 10018.
Papaya Holdings Ltd., 8/F, CNT Commercial Bldg., 302 Queen's Road,
Central, Hong Kong.
Quanyun Electronics Co., Ltd., Floor 1, Workshop No. 1, Weihua
Industrial Areas, Tongsheng Community, Dalang Street, Baoan District,
Shenzhen, China (Mainland) 518000.
ShenZhen Star & Way Trade Co., Ltd., d/b/a DHgate Sellers Best8168 and
Julyoung, Guangzhou Chaoshanglong Company, Room 901, No. 43-3 Siheng
Street, Shuiyin Road, Tianhe District, Guangzhou City, China 510000.
Sinatech Industrial Co., Ltd., Room 3005, 570, FangCun, LiWan
District, GuangZhou City, China.
SmileCase, 3226 Ridgeway Place, Windsor Mill, MD 21244.
Suntel Global Investment Ltd., 2F-D5, Jian Fa Square, 111, Ji
Chang Road, Baiyun District, Guangzhou, China.
TheCaseInPoint.com, 793 Marian Court, Titusville, FL 32780.
TheCaseSpace, 215 East Foothills Parkway D-003, Fort Collins,
CO 80525.
Topter Technology Co. Ltd., 2nd Floor, Building B, Jinkajin Industrial
Zone, Minying Industrial Park, Shuitian Village, Shiyan Town, Shenzhen
Guangdong, China.
Trait Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., 416--419RM, 305 Sufa
Building, Huafa North Road, Futian District, Shenzhen, China.
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436;
and
(3) For the investigation so instituted, the Honorable Paul J.
Luckern, Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade
Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be
submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of
the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(d)-(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be
considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after
the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice
of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the
complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless
good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each
allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to
constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the
[[Page 38419]]
allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the
administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to
the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and
this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final
determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance
of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed
against the respondent.
Issued: June 24, 2011.
By order of the Commission.
James R. Holbein,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-16361 Filed 6-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P