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 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 http://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 http:// edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 205–1810. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation on 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 
http://www.usitc.gov.

[[Page 66965]]

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation 
on 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