Certain Electronic Imaging Devices; Commission Determination To Affirm Finding of No Violation; Termination of the Investigation, 75910-75911 [2011-31134]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
75910
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2011 / Notices
the human remains to The Tribes may
proceed after that date if no additional
requestors come forward.
The Minnesota Indian Affairs Council
is responsible for notifying The Tribes
that this notice has been published.
Dated: November 29, 2011.
Sherry Hutt,
Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
[FR Doc. 2011–31071 Filed 12–2–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–50–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–730]
Certain Inkjet Ink Supplies and
Components Thereof; Final
Determination of Violation;
Termination of Investigation; Issuance
of General Exclusion Order
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 the above-captioned
investigation and has issued a general
exclusion order. The investigation is
terminated.
SUMMARY:
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–3106. 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 August 3, 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’’)
alleging a violation of section 337 in the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:52 Dec 02, 2011
Jkt 226001
importation, sale for importation, and
sale within the United States after
importation of certain inkjet ink
supplies and components thereof by
reason of infringement of certain claims
of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,959,985 and
7,104,630. 75 FR 45663 (Aug. 3, 2010).
Complainant named Mipo
International, Ltd. of Atlanta, Georgia
(‘‘Mipo’’); Mextec Group Inc. of Miami,
Florida (‘‘Mextec’’); Shanghai Angel
Printer Supplies Co., Ltd. of Shanghai,
China (‘‘Shanghai Angel’’); Shenzhen
Print Media Co., Ltd. of Guangdong,
China (‘‘Shenzhen’’); Zhuhai National
Resources & Jingjie Imaging Products
Co., Ltd. of Guangdong, China (‘‘Zhuhai
National’’); Tatrix International of
Guangdong, China (‘‘Tatrix’’); and
Ourway Image Co. Ltd. of Guangdong,
China (‘‘Ourway’’) as respondents.
Subsequently, Mipo, Mextec, and
Shenzhen were terminated from the
investigation based on either a
settlement agreement with HP or
because HP withdrew its allegations
against them. The remaining
respondents, i.e., Shanghai Angel,
Zhuhai National, Tatrix, and Ourway
(collectively, ‘‘Defaulting
Respondents’’), failed to answer the
Complaint and Notice of Investigation
and default judgments were granted
against all the Defaulting Respondents.
On March 7, 2011, complainant HP
filed a paper entitled ‘‘Motion for
Summary Determination That a
Domestic Industry Exists and That
There Have Been Violations of Section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (Amended)
By the Defaulting Respondents and
Complainants’ Request for a General
Exclusion Order.’’ Complainant sought a
determination that a domestic industry
exists and that there has been a
violation of Section 337 and requested
a recommendation for a general
exclusion order (‘‘GEO’’). On August 3,
2011, the ALJ issued an initial
determination (‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 14)
granting complainant’s motion for
summary determination. The ID
contained the ALJ’s recommended
determination on remedy and bonding
including a recommendation for
issuance of a GEO against the Defaulting
Respondents. The ALJ also
recommended that the Commission set
a bond of 100 percent during the period
of Presidential review.
On September 1, 2011, the
Commission determined not to review
the ID and requested briefing on
remedy, the public interest, and
bonding. Only HP and the Commission
investigative attorney timely filed their
respective submissions, containing
proposed GEOs.
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The Commission has determined that
the appropriate form of relief is a GEO
under 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(2), prohibiting
the unlicensed entry of inkjet cartridges
and components thereof covered by one
or more of claims 1–5, 7, 22–25, 27 and
28 of the ‘985 patent and claims 1–7,
11–12, 14, 26–30, 32, 34 and 35 of the
‘630 patent.
The Commission has further
determined that the public interest
factors enumerated in Section 337(d) (19
U.S.C. 1337(d)) do not preclude
issuance of the GEO. The Commission
has determined that the bond for
temporary importation during the
period of Presidential review (19 U.S.C.
1337(j)) shall be in the amount of 100
percent of the value of the imported
articles that are subject to the order. The
Commission’s order was delivered to
the President and the United States
Trade Representative on the day of its
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 210.42–50 of the Commission’s
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.42–50).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: November 29, 2011.
James R. Holbein,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011–31132 Filed 12–2–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–726]
Certain Electronic Imaging Devices;
Commission Determination To Affirm
Finding of No Violation; Termination of
the Investigation
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to affirm
the final initial determination (‘‘ID’’)
issued by the presiding administrative
law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on July 27, 2011
finding no violation of section 337 in
the above-captioned investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jia
Chen, Office of the General Counsel,
U.S. International Trade Commission,
500 E Street SW., Washington, DC
20436, telephone (202) 708–4737.
Copies of non-confidential documents
filed in connection with this
investigation are or will be available for
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2011 / Notices
inspection during official business
hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the
Office of the Secretary, U.S.
International Trade Commission, 500 E
Street SW., Washington, DC 20436,
telephone (202) 205–2000. General
information concerning the Commission
may also be obtained by accessing its
Internet server at https://www.usitc.gov.
The public record for this investigation
may be viewed on the Commission’s
electronic docket (EDIS) at https://
edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired
persons are advised that information on
this matter can be obtained by
contacting the Commission’s TDD
terminal on (202) 205–1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Commission instituted this investigation
on July 8, 2010, based on a complaint
filed by Flashpoint Technology, Inc.
(‘‘Flashpoint’’) of Peterborough, New
Hampshire. 75 FR 39971 (Jul. 8, 2010).
The complaint alleges violations of
Section 337 in the importation into the
United States, the sale for importation,
and the sale within the United States
after importation of certain electronic
imaging devices by reason of
infringement of claims 1, 11, and 21 of
U.S. Patent No. 6,134,606 (‘‘the ’606
patent’’), claims 1–7, 11–13, 16–23, 26,
30–32, 40, and 41 of U.S. Patent No.
6,262,769 (‘‘the ’769 patent’’), and
claims 1–14 and 16 of U.S. Patent No.
6,163,816 (‘‘the ’816 patent’’). On April
7, 2011, the ALJ issued Order No. 36
terminating the investigation as to all
claims of the ’606 patent. The proposed
respondents are Nokia Corporation of
Espoo, Finland and Nokia, Inc. of Irving,
Texas (collectively, ‘‘Nokia’’); Research
In Motion of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
and Research In Motion Corp. of Irving,
Texas (collectively, ‘‘RIM’’); LG
Electronics, Inc. of South Korea, LG
Electronic U.S.A., Inc. of Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey, and LG Electronics
MobileComm U.S.A. of San Diego,
California (collectively, ‘‘LG’’); and HTC
Corporation of Taiwan and HTC
America, Inc. of Bellevue, Washington
(collectively, ‘‘HTC’’). Nokia, RIM, and
LG were terminated from the
investigation on the basis of settlement
agreements.
On March 8, 2011, the Commission
determined not to review the ALJ’s
Order No. 18 granting Flashpoint’s
motion for summary determination that
it has satisfied the economic prong of
the domestic industry requirement. On
July 28, 2011, the ALJ issued the subject
ID finding no violation of Section 337
by HTC. Specifically, the ALJ found that
the accused HTC Android smartphones
and the accused HTC Windows Phone
7 (‘‘WP7’’) smartphones do not infringe
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:52 Dec 02, 2011
Jkt 226001
the asserted claims of the ’769 patent or
the asserted claims of the ’816 patent.
The ALJ also found that HTC has not
established that the asserted claims of
the ’769 patent are invalid for
obviousness in view of the prior art and
that Flashpoint has not established that
the asserted claims of the ’769 patent are
entitled to an earlier date of invention
than that of the patent’s filing date. The
ALJ further found that HTC has not
established that the asserted claims of
the ’816 patent are anticipated by the
prior art, but that HTC has established
that the asserted claims of the ’816
patent are invalid under the on-sale bar
of 35 U.S.C. 102(b). On July 10, 2011,
Flashpoint, HTC and the Commission
investigative attorney each filed a
petition for review.
On September 26, 2011, the
Commission determined to review (1)
Infringement of the asserted claims of
the ’769 patent by the accused HTC
Android smartphones, (2) infringement
of the asserted claims of the ’769 patent
by the accused HTC WP7 smartphones,
(3) the technical prong of the domestic
industry requirement for the ’769 patent
with respect to the licensed Motorola
smartphones, (4) the technical prong of
the domestic industry requirement for
the ’769 patent with respect to the
licensed Apple smartphones, and (5) the
enforceability of the asserted patents
under the doctrines of implied license
and exhaustion. The Commission also
determined to review and to take no
position on (a) anticipation of the
asserted claims of the ’816 patent under
35 U.S.C. 102 in view of the prior art
references and (b) obviousness of the
asserted claims of the ’816 patent under
35 U.S.C. 103 in view of the prior art
references. Finally, the Commission
determined to deny complainant’s
request for oral argument. The
Commission requested that the parties
brief their positions on the issues on
review with reference to the applicable
law and the evidentiary record.
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 the ALJ’s determination of no
violation of Section 337 with respect to
the ’769 patent on the bases that (1) the
accused HTC Android smartphones and
the accused HTC WP7 smartphones do
not infringe the ’769 patent, and (2)
respondent has established that it has an
implied license to practice the ’769
patent with respect to the accused WP7
smartphones. The Commission has
determined to take no position on the
ALJ’s finding that respondent has not
established the right to practice the ’769
patent with respect to the accused WP7
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
75911
smartphones under the defense of
patent exhaustion. The Commission has
also determined to take no position on
the ALJ’s finding that complainant has
not met the technical prong of the
domestic industry requirement for the
’769 patent.
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: November 29, 2011.
James R. Holbein,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011–31134 Filed 12–2–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–743]
Certain Video Game Systems and
Controllers; Investigations:
Terminations, Modifications and
Rulings
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930
provides that if the Commission finds a
violation it shall exclude the articles
concerned from the United States:
unless, after considering the effect of such
exclusion upon the public health and
welfare, competitive conditions in the United
States economy, the production of like or
directly competitive articles in the United
States, and United States consumers, it finds
that such articles should not be excluded
from entry.
19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1). A similar
provision applies to cease and desist
orders. 19 U.S.C. 1337(f)(1).
The Commission is interested in
further development of the record on
the public interest in its investigations.
Accordingly, the parties are invited to
file submissions of no more than five (5)
pages concerning the public interest in
light of the administrative law judge’s
Recommended Determination on
Remedy and Bonding issued in this
investigation on November 2, 2011.
Comments should address whether
issuance of a limited exclusion order
and/or a cease and desist order in this
investigation could affect the public
health and welfare in the United States,
competitive conditions in the United
States economy, the production of like
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 233 (Monday, December 5, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75910-75911]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31134]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-726]
Certain Electronic Imaging Devices; Commission Determination To
Affirm Finding of No Violation; 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 determined to affirm the final initial determination
(``ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') on
July 27, 2011 finding no violation of section 337 in the above-
captioned investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jia Chen, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-4737. Copies of non-
confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are
or will be available for
[[Page 75911]]
inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in
the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E
Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General
information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing
its Internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this
investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket
(EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised
that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the
Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation
on July 8, 2010, based on a complaint filed by Flashpoint Technology,
Inc. (``Flashpoint'') of Peterborough, New Hampshire. 75 FR 39971 (Jul.
8, 2010). The complaint alleges violations of Section 337 in the
importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the
sale within the United States after importation of certain electronic
imaging devices by reason of infringement of claims 1, 11, and 21 of
U.S. Patent No. 6,134,606 (``the '606 patent''), claims 1-7, 11-13, 16-
23, 26, 30-32, 40, and 41 of U.S. Patent No. 6,262,769 (``the '769
patent''), and claims 1-14 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 6,163,816 (``the
'816 patent''). On April 7, 2011, the ALJ issued Order No. 36
terminating the investigation as to all claims of the '606 patent. The
proposed respondents are Nokia Corporation of Espoo, Finland and Nokia,
Inc. of Irving, Texas (collectively, ``Nokia''); Research In Motion of
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada and Research In Motion Corp. of Irving, Texas
(collectively, ``RIM''); LG Electronics, Inc. of South Korea, LG
Electronic U.S.A., Inc. of Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, and LG
Electronics MobileComm U.S.A. of San Diego, California (collectively,
``LG''); and HTC Corporation of Taiwan and HTC America, Inc. of
Bellevue, Washington (collectively, ``HTC''). Nokia, RIM, and LG were
terminated from the investigation on the basis of settlement
agreements.
On March 8, 2011, the Commission determined not to review the ALJ's
Order No. 18 granting Flashpoint's motion for summary determination
that it has satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry
requirement. On July 28, 2011, the ALJ issued the subject ID finding no
violation of Section 337 by HTC. Specifically, the ALJ found that the
accused HTC Android smartphones and the accused HTC Windows Phone 7
(``WP7'') smartphones do not infringe the asserted claims of the '769
patent or the asserted claims of the '816 patent. The ALJ also found
that HTC has not established that the asserted claims of the '769
patent are invalid for obviousness in view of the prior art and that
Flashpoint has not established that the asserted claims of the '769
patent are entitled to an earlier date of invention than that of the
patent's filing date. The ALJ further found that HTC has not
established that the asserted claims of the '816 patent are anticipated
by the prior art, but that HTC has established that the asserted claims
of the '816 patent are invalid under the on-sale bar of 35 U.S.C.
102(b). On July 10, 2011, Flashpoint, HTC and the Commission
investigative attorney each filed a petition for review.
On September 26, 2011, the Commission determined to review (1)
Infringement of the asserted claims of the '769 patent by the accused
HTC Android smartphones, (2) infringement of the asserted claims of the
'769 patent by the accused HTC WP7 smartphones, (3) the technical prong
of the domestic industry requirement for the '769 patent with respect
to the licensed Motorola smartphones, (4) the technical prong of the
domestic industry requirement for the '769 patent with respect to the
licensed Apple smartphones, and (5) the enforceability of the asserted
patents under the doctrines of implied license and exhaustion. The
Commission also determined to review and to take no position on (a)
anticipation of the asserted claims of the '816 patent under 35 U.S.C.
102 in view of the prior art references and (b) obviousness of the
asserted claims of the '816 patent under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of the
prior art references. Finally, the Commission determined to deny
complainant's request for oral argument. The Commission requested that
the parties brief their positions on the issues on review with
reference to the applicable law and the evidentiary record.
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 the ALJ's determination of no violation of Section
337 with respect to the '769 patent on the bases that (1) the accused
HTC Android smartphones and the accused HTC WP7 smartphones do not
infringe the '769 patent, and (2) respondent has established that it
has an implied license to practice the '769 patent with respect to the
accused WP7 smartphones. The Commission has determined to take no
position on the ALJ's finding that respondent has not established the
right to practice the '769 patent with respect to the accused WP7
smartphones under the defense of patent exhaustion. The Commission has
also determined to take no position on the ALJ's finding that
complainant has not met the technical prong of the domestic industry
requirement for the '769 patent.
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: November 29, 2011.
James R. Holbein,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-31134 Filed 12-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
