Certain Inkjet Ink Cartridges With Printheads and Components Thereof; Notice of the Commission's Final Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Issuance of a General Exclusion Order; and Termination of the Investigation, 66964-66965 [2011-27885]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
66964
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 209 / Friday, October 28, 2011 / Notices
automated means of collection of the
information, to the addresses listed
under ADDRESSES. Please refer to the
appropriate OMB control number in all
correspondence.
Before including your address, phone
number, email address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment, including your
personal identifying information, may
be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
Dated: October 21, 2011.
Stephen M. Sheffield,
Acting Chief, Division of Regulatory Support.
[FR Doc. 2011–27849 Filed 10–27–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–05–M
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement
Notice of Proposed Information
Collection for 1029–0036
Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement (OSM) is announcing
its intention to request approval to
continue the collection of information
for Surface Mining Permit
Applications—Minimum Requirements
for Reclamation and Operation Plan.
This information collection activity was
previously approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and
assigned clearance number 1029–0036.
DATES: Comments on the proposed
information collection must be received
by December 27, 2011, to be assured of
consideration.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to
John Trelease, Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, 1951
Constitution Ave, NW., Room 203—SIB,
Washington, DC 20240. Comments may
also be submitted electronically to
jtrelease@osmre.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To
receive a copy of the information
collection request contact John Trelease,
at (202) 208–2783, or by email at
jtrelease@osmre.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OMB
regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, which
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:56 Oct 27, 2011
Jkt 226001
implement provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13),
require that interested members of the
public and affected agencies have an
opportunity to comment on information
collection and recordkeeping activities
[see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)]. This notice
identifies an information collection that
OSM will be submitting to OMB for
renewed approval. The collection is
contained in 30 CFR part 780—Surface
Mining Permit Applications—Minimum
Requirements for Reclamation and
Operation Plan. OSM will request a 3year term of approval for this
information collection activity. An
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to
a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number. The OMB control number for
part 780 is 1029–0036. Responses are
required to obtain a benefit for this
collection.
Comments are invited on: (1) The
need for the collection of information
for the performance of the functions of
the agency; (2) the accuracy of the
agency’s burden estimates; (3) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information collection; and (4)
ways to minimize the information
collection burden on respondents, such
as use of automated means of collection
of the information. A summary of the
public comments will accompany
OSM’s submission of the information
collection requests to OMB.
Before including your address, phone
number, email address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment, including your
personal identifying information, may
be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
This notice provides the public with
60 days in which to comment on the
following information collection
activity:
Title: 30 CFR part 780—Surface
Mining Permit Applications—Minimum
Requirements for Reclamation and
Operation Plan.
OMB Control Number: 1029–0036.
Summary: Sections 507(b), 508(a),
510(b), 515(b) and (d), and 522 of Public
Law 95–87 require applicants to submit
operation and reclamation plans for coal
mining activities. This information
collection is needed to determine
whether the plans will achieve the
reclamation and environmental
protections pursuant to the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act.
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Without this information, Federal and
State regulatory authorities cannot
review and approve permit application
requests.
Bureau Form Number: None.
Frequency of Collection: Once.
Description of Respondents:
Applicants for surface coal mine
permits on Federal lands, and State
regulatory authorities.
Total Annual Responses: 220
applicants and 217 State responses.
Total Annual Burden Hours for
Applicants: 131,378.
Total Annual Burden Hours for
States: 76,115.
Total Annual Burden for All
Respondents: 207,853.
Total Annual Non-Wage Costs for All
Respondents: $1,992,392.
Dated: October 21, 2011.
Stephen M. Sheffield,
Acting Chief, Division of Regulatory Support.
[FR Doc. 2011–27842 Filed 10–27–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–05–M
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–723]
Certain Inkjet Ink Cartridges With
Printheads and Components Thereof;
Notice of the Commission’s Final
Determination Finding a Violation of
Section 337; Issuance of a General
Exclusion Order; and Termination of
the Investigation
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has found a violation of
section 337 in this investigation and has
issued a general exclusion order
prohibiting importation of infringing
inkjet ink cartridges with printheads
and components thereof.
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.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\28OCN1.SGM
28OCN1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 209 / Friday, October 28, 2011 / Notices
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
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’’); ain
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.’’ Final Initial
Determination (‘‘ID’’) at 29.
On June 10, 2011, the Administrative
Law Judge (‘‘ALJ’’) issued his final ID,
finding a violation of section 337 by the
respondents. Specifically, the ALJ found
that the Commission has subject matter
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:56 Oct 27, 2011
Jkt 226001
jurisdiction: in rem jurisdiction over the
accused products and in personam
jurisdiction over APM. 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 the asserted claims 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 filed
petitions for review of the ID. On July
5, 2011, the parties filed responses to
the various petitions and contingent
petition for review.
On August 11, 2011, the Commission
determined to review a single issue in
the final ID and requested briefing on
the issue it determined to review, and
on remedy, the public interest and
bonding. 76 FR 51055 (Aug. 17, 2011).
Specifically, the Commission
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.
On August 25, 2011, the parties filed
written submissions on the issue under
review, remedy, the public interest, and
bonding. On September 1, 2011, the
parties filed reply submissions.
Although Respondent PTC failed to
appear at the hearing and failed to file
post-hearing briefs, resulting in the ALJ
drawing an adverse inference against
PTC (ID at 29), PTC filed a letter dated
August 24, 2011, responding to the issue
under review. However, by failing to file
a post-hearing brief, PTC has waived
any arguments it has or may have had
about any issues in this investigation.
See Order No. 2, Ground Rule 11.1.
Accordingly, the Commission declines
to consider PTC’s submission.
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
66965
Having examined the record of this
investigation, including the ALJ’s final
ID, the Commission has determined that
there is a violation of section 337. The
Commission has determined to reverse
the ALJ’s finding that HP failed to
establish by a preponderance of the
evidence that Respondent APM induced
infringement of the asserted patents,
and finds that HP established by a
preponderance of the evidence that
APM induced infringement of the
asserted patents. The Commission
adopts the ALJ’s findings in all other
respects.
The Commission has further
determined that the appropriate remedy
is a general exclusion order prohibiting
the entry of inkjet ink cartridges with
printheads and components thereof that
infringe any of the asserted claims. The
Commission has also determined that
the public interest factors enumerated in
section 337(d) (19 U.S.C. 1337(d)) do
not preclude issuance of the general
exclusion order. Finally, the
Commission has determined that a bond
of 100 percent of the entered value is
required to permit temporary
importation during the period of
Presidential review (19 U.S.C. 1337(j))
of inkjet ink cartridges with printheads
and components thereof that are subject
to the order. The Commission’s order
and opinion were delivered to the
President and to the United States Trade
Representative on the day of their
issuance.
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, 210.50.
By order of the Commission.
Issued: October 24, 2011.
James R. Holbein,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011–27885 Filed 10–27–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 11–68]
Treasure Coast Specialty Pharmacy
Decision and Order
On September 14, 2011,
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Gail A.
Randall issued the attached
recommended decision. There were no
exceptions filed to the ALJ’s decision.
Having reviewed the record in its
entirety including the ALJ’s
E:\FR\FM\28OCN1.SGM
28OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 209 (Friday, October 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66964-66965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27885]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-723]
Certain Inkjet Ink Cartridges With Printheads and Components
Thereof; Notice of the Commission's Final Determination Finding a
Violation of Section 337; Issuance of a General Exclusion Order; and
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 found a violation of section 337 in this investigation
and has issued a general exclusion order prohibiting importation of
infringing inkjet ink cartridges with printheads and components
thereof.
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.
[[Page 66965]]
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''); ain 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.'' Final Initial Determination (``ID'') at 29.
On June 10, 2011, the Administrative Law Judge (``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 APM. 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 the asserted claims 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
filed petitions for review of the ID. On July 5, 2011, the parties
filed responses to the various petitions and contingent petition for
review.
On August 11, 2011, the Commission determined to review a single
issue in the final ID and requested briefing on the issue it determined
to review, and on remedy, the public interest and bonding. 76 FR 51055
(Aug. 17, 2011). Specifically, the Commission 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.
On August 25, 2011, the parties filed written submissions on the
issue under review, remedy, the public interest, and bonding. On
September 1, 2011, the parties filed reply submissions. Although
Respondent PTC failed to appear at the hearing and failed to file post-
hearing briefs, resulting in the ALJ drawing an adverse inference
against PTC (ID at 29), PTC filed a letter dated August 24, 2011,
responding to the issue under review. However, by failing to file a
post-hearing brief, PTC has waived any arguments it has or may have had
about any issues in this investigation. See Order No. 2, Ground Rule
11.1. Accordingly, the Commission declines to consider PTC's
submission.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the
ALJ's final ID, the Commission has determined that there is a violation
of section 337. The Commission has determined to reverse the ALJ's
finding that HP failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence
that Respondent APM induced infringement of the asserted patents, and
finds that HP established by a preponderance of the evidence that APM
induced infringement of the asserted patents. The Commission adopts the
ALJ's findings in all other respects.
The Commission has further determined that the appropriate remedy
is a general exclusion order prohibiting the entry of inkjet ink
cartridges with printheads and components thereof that infringe any of
the asserted claims. The Commission has also determined that the public
interest factors enumerated in section 337(d) (19 U.S.C. 1337(d)) do
not preclude issuance of the general exclusion order. Finally, the
Commission has determined that a bond of 100 percent of the entered
value is required to permit temporary importation during the period of
Presidential review (19 U.S.C. 1337(j)) of inkjet ink cartridges with
printheads and components thereof that are subject to the order. The
Commission's order and opinion were delivered to the President and to
the United States Trade Representative on the day of their issuance.
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, 210.50.
By order of the Commission.
Issued: October 24, 2011.
James R. Holbein,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-27885 Filed 10-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
