In the Matter of Certain Inkjet Ink Cartridges with Printheads and Components Thereof; Notice of Commission Determination to Review in Part A Final Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions on the Issue Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest and Bonding, 51055-51056 [2011-20913]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 2011 / Notices
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–723]
In the Matter of Certain Inkjet Ink
Cartridges with Printheads and
Components Thereof; Notice of
Commission Determination to Review
in Part A Final Initial Determination
Finding a Violation of Section 337;
Schedule for Filing Written
Submissions on the Issue 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
June 10, 2011, finding a 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, Esq., 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
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 June 25, 2010, based on a complaint
filed by Hewlett-Packard Company of
Palo Alto, California and HewlettPackard Development Company, L.P., of
Houston, Texas (collectively ‘‘HP’’). 75
FR. 36442 (June 25, 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 inkjet ink
cartridges with printheads and
Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:13 Aug 16, 2011
Jkt 223001
components thereof by reason of
infringement of various claims of United
States Patent Nos. 6,234,598 (‘‘the ’598
patent’’) ; 6,309,053 (‘‘the ’053 patent’’);
6,398,347 (‘‘the ’347 patent’’); 6,481,817
(‘‘the ’817 patent’’); 6,402,279 (‘‘the ’279
patent’’); and 6,412,917 (‘‘the ’917
patent’’). The ’917 patent was
subsequently terminated from the
investigation. The complaint named the
following entities as respondents:
MicroJet Technology Co., Ltd. of
Hsinchu City, Taiwan (‘‘MicroJet’’); Asia
Pacific Microsystems, Inc. of Hsinchu
City, Taiwan (‘‘APM’’); Mipo
Technology Limited of Kowloon, Hong
Kong (‘‘Mipo Tech.’’); Mipo Science &
Technology Co., Ltd. of Guangzhou,
China (‘‘Mipo’’); Mextec d/b/a Mipo
America Ltd. of Miami, Florida
(‘‘Mextec’’); SinoTime Technologies,
Inc. d/b/a All Colors of Miami, Florida
(‘‘SinoTime’’); and PTC Holdings
Limited of Kowloon, Hong Kong
(‘‘PTC’’).
Respondents Mipo, Mipo Tech.,
SinoTime, and Mextec were
subsequently terminated from the
investigation. Respondent MicroJet
defaulted. Respondent PTC did not
participate in the hearing and failed to
file post-hearing briefs. Pursuant to 19
CFR 210.17(d) and (e), the ALJ drew an
adverse inference against PTC that ‘‘PTC
imported accused products into the
United States, that those products were
manufactured by MicroJet, and that
those products contain ICs [integrated
circuits] made by APM.’’ ID at 29.
On June 10, 2011, the ALJ issued his
final ID, finding a violation of section
337 by the respondents. Specifically, the
ALJ found that the Commission has
subject matter jurisdiction: in rem
jurisdiction over the accused products
and in personam jurisdiction over the
respondents. The ALJ also found that
there has been an importation into the
United States, sale for importation, or
sale within the United States after
importation of the accused inkjet ink
cartridges with printheads and
components thereof. Regarding
infringement, the ALJ found that
MicroJet and PTC directly infringe
claims 1–6 and 8–10 of the ’598 patent,
claims 1–6 and 8–17 of the ’053 patent,
claims 1, 3–5, and 8–12 of the ’347
patent, claims 1–14 of the ’817 patent,
and claims 9–15 of the ’279 patent. The
ALJ also found that MicroJet induces
infringement of those claims. The ALJ
further found that APM does not
directly infringe claims 1–5 of the ’598
and does not induce infringement of the
asserted patents. The ALJ, however,
found APM liable for contributory
infringement. With respect to invalidity,
the ALJ found that the asserted patents
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
51055
were not invalid. Finally, the ALJ
concluded that an industry exists within
the United States that practices the ’598,
’053, ’347, ’817, and ’279 patents as
required by 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(2).
On June 24, 2011, HP filed a
contingent petition for review of the ID.
On June 27, 2011, APM and the
Commission investigative attorney
(‘‘IA’’) filed petitions for review of the
ID. On July 5, 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 finding that
HP failed to establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that
Respondent APM induced infringement
of the asserted patents. The Commission
has determined not to review any other
issues in the ID.
The parties are requested to brief their
positions on the issue under review
with reference to the applicable law and
the evidentiary record. In connection
with its review, the Commission is
particularly interested in a response to
the following question:
1. Does the record evidence
demonstrate that APM’s conduct meets
the ‘‘specific intent’’ requirement for
inducement in light of the ALJ’s finding
that ‘‘APM certainly had knowledge of
the asserted patents and the
infringement at issue once it was served
with HP’s Complaint. And APM
continued to sell its components to
MicroJet even after receiving HP’s
Complaint’’? ID at 91; RX–69C. See DSU
Med. Corp. v. JMS Co., 471 F.3d 1293,
1305 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
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
E:\FR\FM\17AUN1.SGM
17AUN1
Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
51056
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 2011 / Notices
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
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 issue
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. 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 patents expire 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 Thursday,
August 25, 2011. Reply submissions
must be filed no later than the close of
business on Thursday, September 1,
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:13 Aug 16, 2011
Jkt 223001
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: August 11, 2011.
William R. Bishop,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011–20913 Filed 8–16–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE ;P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–751]
In the Matter of Certain
Turbomachinery Blades, Engines, and
Components Thereof; Notice of
Commission Decision Not To Review
an Initial Determination Terminating
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 presiding administrative law
judge’s initial determination (‘‘ID’’)
(Order No. 8) granting a joint motion to
terminate the investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
708–2532. 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
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 December 14, 2010, based on a
complaint filed by United Technologies
Corporation of Hartford, Connecticut,
that named as respondents Rolls-Royce
Group plc and Rolls-Royce plc, both of
the United Kingdom. 75 FR 77904 (Dec.
14, 2010). The complaint alleged a
violation of section 337 in the
importation, sale for importation, and
sale within the United States after
importation of certain turbomachinery
blades, engines, and components thereof
by reason of the infringement of certain
claims of U.S. Patent No. RE38,040.
On July 15, 2011, the private parties
moved to terminate the investigation
based on a settlement. On July 22, 2011,
the Commission investigative attorney
filed a response in support of the
motion. On July 25, 2011, the ALJ
granted the motion as an ID (Order No.
8).
No petitions for review of the ID were
filed. The Commission has determined
not to review the 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 Part
210 of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part
210).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: August 11, 2011.
William R. Bishop,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011–20869 Filed 8–16–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
Notice of Random Assignment Study
To Evaluate the YouthBuild Program;
Request for Comment
Employment and Training
Administration (ETA), Labor.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Department of Labor
(DOL or the Department) is prepared to
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\17AUN1.SGM
17AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 159 (Wednesday, August 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51055-51056]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20913]
[[Page 51055]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-723]
In the Matter of Certain Inkjet Ink Cartridges with Printheads
and Components Thereof; Notice of Commission Determination to Review in
Part A Final Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337;
Schedule for Filing Written Submissions on the Issue 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 June 10, 2011, finding a 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, Esq., 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 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 June 25, 2010, based on a complaint filed by Hewlett-Packard Company
of Palo Alto, California and Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.,
of Houston, Texas (collectively ``HP''). 75 FR. 36442 (June 25, 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 inkjet ink cartridges with printheads and
components thereof by reason of infringement of various claims of
United States Patent Nos. 6,234,598 (``the '598 patent'') ; 6,309,053
(``the '053 patent''); 6,398,347 (``the '347 patent''); 6,481,817
(``the '817 patent''); 6,402,279 (``the '279 patent''); and 6,412,917
(``the '917 patent''). The '917 patent was subsequently terminated from
the investigation. The complaint named the following entities as
respondents: MicroJet Technology Co., Ltd. of Hsinchu City, Taiwan
(``MicroJet''); Asia Pacific Microsystems, Inc. of Hsinchu City, Taiwan
(``APM''); Mipo Technology Limited of Kowloon, Hong Kong (``Mipo
Tech.''); Mipo Science & Technology Co., Ltd. of Guangzhou, China
(``Mipo''); Mextec d/b/a Mipo America Ltd. of Miami, Florida
(``Mextec''); SinoTime Technologies, Inc. d/b/a All Colors of Miami,
Florida (``SinoTime''); and PTC Holdings Limited of Kowloon, Hong Kong
(``PTC'').
Respondents Mipo, Mipo Tech., SinoTime, and Mextec were
subsequently terminated from the investigation. Respondent MicroJet
defaulted. Respondent PTC did not participate in the hearing and failed
to file post-hearing briefs. Pursuant to 19 CFR 210.17(d) and (e), the
ALJ drew an adverse inference against PTC that ``PTC imported accused
products into the United States, that those products were manufactured
by MicroJet, and that those products contain ICs [integrated circuits]
made by APM.'' ID at 29.
On June 10, 2011, the ALJ issued his final ID, finding a violation
of section 337 by the respondents. Specifically, the ALJ found that the
Commission has subject matter jurisdiction: in rem jurisdiction over
the accused products and in personam jurisdiction over the respondents.
The ALJ also found that there has been an importation into the United
States, sale for importation, or sale within the United States after
importation of the accused inkjet ink cartridges with printheads and
components thereof. Regarding infringement, the ALJ found that MicroJet
and PTC directly infringe claims 1-6 and 8-10 of the '598 patent,
claims 1-6 and 8-17 of the '053 patent, claims 1, 3-5, and 8-12 of the
'347 patent, claims 1-14 of the '817 patent, and claims 9-15 of the
'279 patent. The ALJ also found that MicroJet induces infringement of
those claims. The ALJ further found that APM does not directly infringe
claims 1-5 of the '598 and does not induce infringement of the asserted
patents. The ALJ, however, found APM liable for contributory
infringement. With respect to invalidity, the ALJ found that the
asserted patents were not invalid. Finally, the ALJ concluded that an
industry exists within the United States that practices the '598, '053,
'347, '817, and '279 patents as required by 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(2).
On June 24, 2011, HP filed a contingent petition for review of the
ID. On June 27, 2011, APM and the Commission investigative attorney
(``IA'') filed petitions for review of the ID. On July 5, 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 finding that
HP failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that
Respondent APM induced infringement of the asserted patents. The
Commission has determined not to review any other issues in the ID.
The parties are requested to brief their positions on the issue
under review with reference to the applicable law and the evidentiary
record. In connection with its review, the Commission is particularly
interested in a response to the following question:
1. Does the record evidence demonstrate that APM's conduct meets
the ``specific intent'' requirement for inducement in light of the
ALJ's finding that ``APM certainly had knowledge of the asserted
patents and the infringement at issue once it was served with HP's
Complaint. And APM continued to sell its components to MicroJet even
after receiving HP's Complaint''? ID at 91; RX-69C. See DSU Med. Corp.
v. JMS Co., 471 F.3d 1293, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
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
[[Page 51056]]
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 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 issue 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. 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 patents
expire 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 Thursday, August 25, 2011.
Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on
Thursday, September 1, 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: August 11, 2011.
William R. Bishop,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-20913 Filed 8-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE ;P
