Certain Agricultural Vehicles and Components Thereof Final Determination; Reinstatement of General Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Orders; Termination of the Investigation, 3001-3002 [2012-1028]

Download as PDF wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 13 / Friday, January 20, 2012 / Notices at https://edis.usitc.gov, and 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 (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. Hearingimpaired 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 has received a complaint filed on behalf of Mondis Technology, Ltd. on January 13, 2012. The complaint alleges 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 video displays and products using and containing same. The complaint names Chimei Innolux Corporation of Taiwan; and Innolux Corporation of Austin, TX, as respondents. The complainant, proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five pages in length, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint. Comments should address whether issuance of an exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order in this investigation would negatively affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers. In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that: (i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the orders are used in the United States; (ii) Identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the potential orders; (iii) Indicate the extent to which like or directly competitive articles are produced in the United States or are otherwise available in the United States, with respect to the articles potentially subject to the orders; and (iv) Indicate whether Complainant, Complainant’s licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:12 Jan 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 potentially subject to an exclusion order and a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time. Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight business days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. There will be further opportunities for comment on the public interest after the issuance of any final initial determination in this investigation. 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. Submissions should refer to the docket number (‘‘Docket No. 2871’’) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. The Commission’s rules authorize filing submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means only to the extent permitted by section 201.8 of the rules (see Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/ secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/ documents/handbook_on_electronic_ filing.pdf. Persons with questions regarding electronic filing should contact the Secretary (202) 205–2000). Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary. This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.50(a)(4) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.50(a)(4)). By order of the Commission. Issued: January 17, 2012. James R. Holbein, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2012–1093 Filed 1–19–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 3001 INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–487 (Second Remand)] Certain Agricultural Vehicles and Components Thereof Final Determination; Reinstatement of General Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Orders; 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 that there is a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), by respondents Bourdeau Bros., Inc., Sunova Implement Co., and OK Enterprises in the above-captioned remand investigation. The Commission has reinstated the general exclusion order with respect to subject selfpropelled forage harvesters and the cease and desist orders against Bourdeau and OK Enterprises and certain other firms that it had issued in the original investigation, and has terminated the investigation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark B. Rees, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–3116. 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 remand of this investigation involves the gray market claims of Deere & Co. (‘‘Deere’’) that Bourdeau Bros., Inc., Sunova Implement Co., and OK Enterprises (collectively, ‘‘the Bourdeau respondents’’) violated section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\20JAN1.SGM 20JAN1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 3002 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 13 / Friday, January 20, 2012 / Notices United States after importation of Deere’s European version (‘‘EV’’) selfpropelled forage harvesters (‘‘SPFHs’’) by reason of infringement of U.S. Registered Trademarks Nos. 1,254,339; 1,502,103; 1,503,576; 91,860; and 2,729,766. In the original investigation, the Commission determined that there was a violation of section 337 and issued, in relevant part, a general exclusion order covering EVSPFHs and cease and desist orders directed to certain of the Bourdeau respondents and other respondents. On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Court vacated the determination of violation against the Bourdeau respondents and remanded for findings on whether domestic sales of EVSPFHs by official Deere dealers were authorized by Deere and whether all or substantially all of the SPFH’s authorized by Deere for sale in the domestic market were of its North American version (‘‘NA’’) SPFHs. Bourdeau Bros., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 444 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Following receipt of the mandate, the Commission rescinded its remedial orders with respect to EVSPFHs and referred the investigation to the original presiding administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’). The ALJ considered and denied cross-motions for summary determination on the remanded issues, conducted an evidentiary hearing, and issued an initial determination on remand (‘‘RID’’) of violation of section 337. The Bourdeau respondents petitioned for review. The Commission determined to review the ALJ’s summary determination order and the RID. Based on additional rounds of briefing and its review of the entire record, the Commission issued a final determination that there was no violation of section 337. The Commission found that Deere failed to prove that sales of EVSPFHs in the United States by its official dealers were not authorized and also failed to prove that substantially all of the authorized sales of Deere SPFHs in the United States were NASPFHs. Deere appealed. On appeal, the Court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. Deere & Co. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 605 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The Court upheld the Commission’s consideration of official Deere dealer sales and found that substantial evidence supported the determination that sales of EVSPFHs in the United States by official U.S. and European Deere dealers were authorized. Id. at 1355–58. The Court further ruled, however, that the Commission misapplied the ‘‘all or substantially all’’ VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:12 Jan 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 test by using the wrong denominator and taking into consideration the ratio of authorized sales of EVSPFHs to the total number of EVSPFHs sold in the United States. Id. at 1358–62. The Court remanded for consideration, based on its instructions, of whether Deere satisfied the requirement that substantially all of its SPFH sales in the United States were of NASPFHs. Id. at 1362. The Court’s mandate, issued July 19, 2010, was received by the Commission on July 23, 2010. On October 14, 2010, the Commission requested briefing by the parties on the merits of the remand. Deere and the Bourdeau respondents completed briefing on December 10, 2010. Based on the record of this investigation, including the Court’s instructions on remand and the parties’ briefing on remand, the Commission determined that Deere has established that substantially all of its U.S. SPFH sales were of NASPFHs and therefore has met its burden of proof on remand to satisfy the ‘‘all or substantially all’’ test for gray market trademark infringement and, accordingly, is entitled to a determination of violation of section 337 and the reinstatement of the exclusion order and cease and desist orders with respect to EVSPFHs issued by the Commission in the original investigation. The Commission has terminated the investigation in accordance with the above findings on remand. 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 Part 210 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210). Issued: January 13, 2012. By order of the Commission. James R. Holbein, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2012–1028 Filed 1–19–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–773] Certain Motion-Sensitive Sound Effects Devices and Image Display Devices and Components and Products Containing Same; Termination of Investigation U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 61) granting a joint motion to terminate the above-captioned investigation as to respondents Toshiba Corporation of Tokyo, Japan, and Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., of Irvine, California (collectively, ‘‘Toshiba’’) based on a settlement agreement. Because the Toshiba entities were the last remaining entities in the investigation, the consolidated investigation is terminated. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clark S. Cheney, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2661. 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 (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. The Commission instituted this investigation on May 19, 2011, based on a complaint filed by Ogma, LLC (‘‘Ogma’’). 76 FR 29006 (May 19, 2011). The complaint alleges 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 motion-sensitive sound effects devices and image display devices and components and products containing same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,825,427 (‘‘the ’427 patent’’) and 6,150,947 (‘‘the ’947 patent’’). The Commission instituted Inv. No. 337–TA–787 on July 18, 2011, based on another complaint filed by Ogma. 76 FR 42136 (July 18, 2011). The complaint in the latter investigation alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) by reason of infringement of the same patents asserted in the earlier 773 investigation, namely the ’427 patent and the ’947 patent. The complaint in the 787 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: E:\FR\FM\20JAN1.SGM 20JAN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 13 (Friday, January 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3001-3002]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1028]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-487 (Second Remand)]


Certain Agricultural Vehicles and Components Thereof Final 
Determination; Reinstatement of General Exclusion Order and Cease and 
Desist Orders; 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 that there is a violation of section 337 of 
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), by respondents 
Bourdeau Bros., Inc., Sunova Implement Co., and OK Enterprises in the 
above-captioned remand investigation. The Commission has reinstated the 
general exclusion order with respect to subject self-propelled forage 
harvesters and the cease and desist orders against Bourdeau and OK 
Enterprises and certain other firms that it had issued in the original 
investigation, and has terminated the investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark B. Rees, Office of the General 
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3116. 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 remand of this investigation involves 
the gray market claims of Deere & Co. (``Deere'') that Bourdeau Bros., 
Inc., Sunova Implement Co., and OK Enterprises (collectively, ``the 
Bourdeau respondents'') violated section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 
in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, 
and the sale within the

[[Page 3002]]

United States after importation of Deere's European version (``EV'') 
self-propelled forage harvesters (``SPFHs'') by reason of infringement 
of U.S. Registered Trademarks Nos. 1,254,339; 1,502,103; 1,503,576; 
91,860; and 2,729,766. In the original investigation, the Commission 
determined that there was a violation of section 337 and issued, in 
relevant part, a general exclusion order covering EVSPFHs and cease and 
desist orders directed to certain of the Bourdeau respondents and other 
respondents.
    On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit, the Court vacated the determination of violation against the 
Bourdeau respondents and remanded for findings on whether domestic 
sales of EVSPFHs by official Deere dealers were authorized by Deere and 
whether all or substantially all of the SPFH's authorized by Deere for 
sale in the domestic market were of its North American version (``NA'') 
SPFHs. Bourdeau Bros., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 444 F.3d 1317 (Fed. 
Cir. 2006).
    Following receipt of the mandate, the Commission rescinded its 
remedial orders with respect to EVSPFHs and referred the investigation 
to the original presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ''). The ALJ 
considered and denied cross-motions for summary determination on the 
remanded issues, conducted an evidentiary hearing, and issued an 
initial determination on remand (``RID'') of violation of section 337. 
The Bourdeau respondents petitioned for review. The Commission 
determined to review the ALJ's summary determination order and the RID. 
Based on additional rounds of briefing and its review of the entire 
record, the Commission issued a final determination that there was no 
violation of section 337. The Commission found that Deere failed to 
prove that sales of EVSPFHs in the United States by its official 
dealers were not authorized and also failed to prove that substantially 
all of the authorized sales of Deere SPFHs in the United States were 
NASPFHs.
    Deere appealed. On appeal, the Court vacated and remanded for 
further proceedings. Deere & Co. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 605 F.3d 1350 
(Fed. Cir. 2010). The Court upheld the Commission's consideration of 
official Deere dealer sales and found that substantial evidence 
supported the determination that sales of EVSPFHs in the United States 
by official U.S. and European Deere dealers were authorized. Id. at 
1355-58. The Court further ruled, however, that the Commission 
misapplied the ``all or substantially all'' test by using the wrong 
denominator and taking into consideration the ratio of authorized sales 
of EVSPFHs to the total number of EVSPFHs sold in the United States. 
Id. at 1358-62. The Court remanded for consideration, based on its 
instructions, of whether Deere satisfied the requirement that 
substantially all of its SPFH sales in the United States were of 
NASPFHs. Id. at 1362. The Court's mandate, issued July 19, 2010, was 
received by the Commission on July 23, 2010.
    On October 14, 2010, the Commission requested briefing by the 
parties on the merits of the remand. Deere and the Bourdeau respondents 
completed briefing on December 10, 2010.
    Based on the record of this investigation, including the Court's 
instructions on remand and the parties' briefing on remand, the 
Commission determined that Deere has established that substantially all 
of its U.S. SPFH sales were of NASPFHs and therefore has met its burden 
of proof on remand to satisfy the ``all or substantially all'' test for 
gray market trademark infringement and, accordingly, is entitled to a 
determination of violation of section 337 and the reinstatement of the 
exclusion order and cease and desist orders with respect to EVSPFHs 
issued by the Commission in the original investigation.
    The Commission has terminated the investigation in accordance with 
the above findings on remand. 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 Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).

    Issued: January 13, 2012.

    By order of the Commission.
James R. Holbein,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-1028 Filed 1-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.