Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing the Same; Determination To Review a Final Initial Determination in Part and Set a Schedule for Filing Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding, 56672-56674 [2012-22517]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
56672
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 178 / Thursday, September 13, 2012 / Notices
Planning, Environment, and Public
Comment Web site at: https://
www.parkplanning.nps.gov/indu. It can
also be accessed through the Park’s
home page at https://www.nps.gov/indu.
Copies may be obtained by making a
request in writing or picked up in
person at Indiana Dunes National
Lakeshore, 1100 N. Mineral Springs
Road, Porter, Indiana 46304; telephone
(219) 926–7561, extension 225.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Superintendent Constantine Dillon,
Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, at
the address above, or by telephone at
(219) 926–7561, extension 225.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
National Park Service (NPS) has
prepared a draft SRMP for Indiana
Dunes National Lakeshore. The SRMP
prescribes the resource conditions and
restoration activities intended to
maintain the shoreline over the next 15
to 20 years. The project area consists of
four reaches of shoreline, Reaches 1
through 4, in an east-to-west direction.
The park shoreline is not contiguous
because of industrial and navigational
structures, state park land, and other
non-federal property.
The SRMP presents a range of
reasonable management alternatives.
Alternative A, the No-Action
alternative, describes a continuation of
current management practices, and is
included as the baseline for comparing
consequences of each alternative.
Alternatives B, C, and D represent
variations on beach nourishment
activities. Alternatives B–1 and B–5
discuss beach nourishment using
material from an upland source in 1and 5-year frequencies. Beach
nourishment using dredged materials in
1- and 5-year frequencies is described in
Alternatives C–1 and C–5, and
Alternative D outlines nourishment
activities by way of a permanent
sediment bypass system. Finally, the
use of submerged beach-stabilizing
structures is discussed in Alternative E.
The alternatives presented in this
plan focus on balancing the quantities of
sediment flowing through the shoreline
reaches. Over the course of developing
the SRMP, the alternatives were finetuned to accomplish this task and also
address the protection of the shoreline
from critical eroding areas, providing
habitat opportunities, allowing for
natural processes to continue, and
rehabilitating the shoreline in a costeffective manner.
For Reaches 1 and 2, the SRMP
considered all alternatives and
Alternative E has been selected as the
Preferred Alternative. The NPS believes
that this alternative provides the best
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:13 Sep 12, 2012
Jkt 226001
combination of strategies to protect the
park’s unique resources and visitor
experience, while improving the park’s
operational sustainability.
Implementation of the Preferred
Alternative in Reaches 1 and 2 would
offer a high level of protection of natural
resources along the shoreline while
providing for a wide range of beneficial
uses of the environment.
For Reaches 3 and 4, only dredged
sources and the sediment bypass system
were viable alternatives (no submerged
beach-stabilizing structures in these
reaches), and Alternative C–5 has been
selected as the Preferred Alternative
because the NPS believes that it
provides for the most cost efficient and
greatest potential for both foredune
creation and providing protection from
major storm events.
The SRMP describes the potential
environmental consequences of the
alternatives on coastal processes,
including sediment transport and dune
formation, aquatic fauna, terrestrial
habitat, threatened and endangered
plant and animal species, wetlands and
pannes, soundscape, visitor experience,
and park operations.
The SRMP also presents a discussion
on terrestrial management practices as
they relate to the visitor experience. As
the park is a popular destination for
millions of people, the impacts of
human activities on the natural
resources of the park are ever-present
and additive.
We welcome comments on the SRMP.
Before including your address,
telephone number, electronic mail
address, or other personal identifying
information in your comments, 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 comments to
withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so. We will make all submissions
from organizations or businesses, from
individuals identifying themselves as
representatives or officials, of
organizations or businesses, available
for public inspection in their entirety.
Dated: July 27, 2012.
Michael T. Reynolds,
Regional Director, Midwest Region.
[FR Doc. 2012–22557 Filed 9–12–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310– FH–P
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–784]
Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and
Products Containing the Same;
Determination To Review a Final Initial
Determination in Part and Set a
Schedule for Filing Written
Submissions on the Issues 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
July 9, 2012, in the above-captioned
investigation.
SUMMARY:
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)
205–3115. 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
under section 337 of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on
July 11, 2011, based on two complaints
filed by OSRAM GmbH of Munich,
Germany (‘‘OSRAM’’), alleging, inter
alia, a violation of section 337 in the
importation, sale for importation, and
sale within the United States after
importation of certain light-emitting
diodes and products containing same by
reason of infringement of certain claims
of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,849,881 (‘‘the ‘881
patent’’); 6,975,011 (‘‘the ‘011 patent’’);
7,106,090 (‘‘the ‘090 patent’’); 7,151,283
(‘‘the ‘283 patent’’); and 7,271,425 (‘‘the
‘425 patent’’). 76 FR 40746 (July 11,
E:\FR\FM\13SEN1.SGM
13SEN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 178 / Thursday, September 13, 2012 / Notices
2011). Subsequently, the ‘881, the ‘090,
and the ‘011, as well as certain claims
of the ‘283 and ‘425 patents, were
terminated from the investigation. The
respondents are LG Electronics and LG
Innotek Co., Ltd., both of Seoul,
Republic of Korea; LG Electronics
U.S.A., Inc. of Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey; and LG Innotek U.S.A., Inc. of
San Diego, California (collectively,
‘‘LG’’). Id. The Office of Unfair Import
Investigations was not named as a party
to the investigation.
The evidentiary hearing in this
investigation was held from April 26
through May 2, 2012. On July 9, 2012,
the ALJ issued the final ID finding a
violation of section 337. The ALJ issued
his recommended determination on
remedy and bonding on July 23, 2012.
Respondent LG filed a timely petition
for review of various portions of the
final ID, and complainant OSRAM filed
a timely response to the petition.
Having examined the record in this
investigation, including the ALJ’s final
ID, the petition for review, and the
response thereto, the Commission has
determined to review:
(I) The ALJ’s determination that
OSRAM met the economic prong of the
domestic industry requirement with
respect to both asserted patents;
(II) With respect to the ‘283 patent:
(a) the ALJ’s determination that
claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 22, 24, 25, 26, 29,
32, 33, and 34 of the ‘283 patent are not
rendered obvious in view of prior art
references Japanese Patent (‘‘JP’’) 345, JP
609, JP 794, and Hewes;
(b) the ALJ’s determination that claim
34 of the ‘283 patent is not rendered
obvious in view of prior art references
Nikkei Article, Stevenson, Blasse, and
Hewes;
(c) the ALJ’s determination that claim
34 of the ‘283 patent is not rendered
obvious in view of prior art references
JP 609, Nikkei Article, Blasse, and
Hewes.
The Commission has determined not
to review the remainder of the final ID.
The parties are requested to brief their
positions on only the following issues,
with reference to the applicable law and
the evidentiary record:
(1) With respect to the economic
prong of the domestic industry
requirement:
(a) Please identify the record evidence
showing that the products on which
OSRAM relies for the purpose of
demonstrating that it met the economic
prong of the domestic industry
requirement are protected by the ‘283
patent, as required by 19 U.S.C.
1337(a)(3);
(b) Please identify the record evidence
showing that, with respect to its
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:13 Sep 12, 2012
Jkt 226001
products protected by the ‘283 patent,
OSRAM made qualifying investments in
the ‘283 patent’s exploitation, including
engineering, research and development,
as required by 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C);
(c) Please identify the record evidence
showing that OSRAM’s qualifying
investment in the ‘283 patent’s
exploitation, including engineering,
research and development, with respect
to OSRAM’s products protected by the
‘283 patent is substantial, as required by
19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C).
(2) With respect to the ‘283 patent:
(a) Does the record evidence,
including the disclosure in JP 609 (see
RX–105), and OSRAM’s arguments
made before the European Patent Office
(see RX–118) and USPTO (see RX–
10002), show that JP 609 teaches a
‘‘partial conversion’’ of light?
(b) Does the record evidence,
including the disclosure in the Nikkei
Article (see RX–108), and OSRAM’s
arguments made before the European
Patent Office (see RX–118), show that
the Nikkei Article teaches a ‘‘partial
conversion’’ of light?
(c) Assuming the evidence
demonstrates that JP 609 or the Nikkei
Article discloses partial conversion,
please identify the record evidence that
demonstrates that one of ordinary skill
in the art would have been motivated to
combine: (i) JP 345 (see RX–107), JP 609,
JP 794 (see RX–106), and Hewes (see
RX–101); (ii) the Nikkei Article,
Stevenson (see RX–109), Blasse (see
RX–110), and Hewes; or (iii) JP 609, the
Nikkei Article, Blasse, and Hewes, to
arrive at the claimed inventions of the
‘283 patent.
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 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 are likely to do so. For
background, see Certain Devices for
Connecting Computers via Telephone
Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360, USITC
Pub. No. 2843, Comm’n Op. at 7–10
(Dec. 1994).
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
56673
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 President has 60 days to
approve or disapprove the
Commission’s action. During this
period, the subject articles would be
entitled to enter the United States under
bond, in an amount determined by the
Commission and prescribed by the
Secretary of the Treasury. The
Commission is therefore interested in
receiving submissions concerning the
amount of the bond that should be
imposed.
Written Submissions: The parties to
the investigation are requested to file
written submissions on the issues under
review. The submissions should be
concise and thoroughly referenced to
the record in this investigation. Parties
to the investigation, interested
government agencies, and any other
interested persons 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. Complainant is also
requested to submit proposed remedial
orders for the Commission’s
consideration. Complainant is further
requested to provide the expiration date
of the ‘283 patent and state the HTSUS
subheading(s) under which the accused
articles are imported. The written
submissions and proposed remedial
orders must be filed no later than the
close of business on September 21,
2012. Reply submissions must be filed
no later than the close of business on
September 28, 2012. No further
submissions on these issues will be
permitted unless otherwise ordered by
the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions
must file the original document
electronically on or before the deadlines
stated above and submit 8 true paper
copies to the Office of the Secretary by
noon the next day pursuant to section
210.4(f) of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
E:\FR\FM\13SEN1.SGM
13SEN1
56674
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 178 / Thursday, September 13, 2012 / Notices
210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to
the investigation number (‘‘Inv. No.
337–TA–784’’) in a prominent place on
the cover page and/or the first page. (See
Handbook for Electronic Filing
Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/
secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/
handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf).
Persons with questions regarding 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. A redacted nonconfidential version of the document
must also be filed simultaneously with
the any confidential filing. All nonconfidential written submissions will be
available for public inspection at the
Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.
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 of the Commission’s
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.42-.46).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: September 7, 2012.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012–22517 Filed 9–12–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
United States v. Humana Inc. and
Arcadian Management Services, Inc.;
Public Comment and Response on
Proposed Final Judgment
Pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures
and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h),
the United States hereby publishes
below the comment received on the
proposed Final Judgment in United
States v. Humana Inc. and Arcadian
Management Services, Inc., Civil Action
No: 12–cv–464–RBW, which was filed
in the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia on September
5, 2012 together with the Response of
the United States to the comment.
Copies of the comment and the
response are available for inspection at
the Department of Justice Antitrust
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:13 Sep 12, 2012
Jkt 226001
Division, 450 Fifth Street NW., Suite
4100, Washington, DC 20530
(telephone: 202–307–6456), on the
Department of Justice’s Web site at
https://www.justice.gov/atr, and at the
Office of the Clerk of the United States
District Court for the District of
Columbia, 333 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20001. Copies of
any of these materials may be obtained
upon request and payment of a copying
fee.
Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement.
United States District Court for the District
of Columbia
United States of America, Plaintiff, v.
Humana Inc. and Arcadian Management
Services, Inc., Defendants.
Case: 1:12–cv–00464 (RBW).
Response of Plaintiff United States to Public
Comment On the Proposed Final Judgment
Pursuant to the requirements of the
Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15
U.S.C. 16(b)–(h) (‘‘APPA’’ or ‘‘Tunney Act’’),
the United States hereby responds to the
public comment received regarding the
proposed Final Judgment in this case. The
single comment received agrees that the
proposed Final Judgment will provide an
effective and appropriate remedy for the
antitrust violations alleged in the Complaint.
The United States will move the Court for
entry of the proposed Final Judgment after
the public comment and this response have
been published in the Federal Register,
pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 16(d).
I. Procedural History
On August 24, 2011, Humana Inc.
(‘‘Humana’’) and Arcadian Management
Services, Inc. (‘‘Arcadian’’) entered into a
merger agreement whereby Humana agreed to
acquire all of the outstanding shares of
Arcadian for approximately $150 million.
The United States filed a civil antitrust
Complaint on March 27, 2012, seeking to
enjoin Humana from acquiring Arcadian,
alleging that the acquisition likely would
substantially lessen competition in the sale of
individual Medicare Advantage plans in
forty-five counties and parishes in Arizona,
Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas
(‘‘the relevant geographic markets’’), in
violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15
U.S.C. 18. At the time the complaint was
filed, Humana provided health insurance to
approximately 35,000 Medicare Advantage
enrollees in the relevant geographic markets,
and Arcadian provided health insurance to
over 14,700 Medicare Advantage enrollees in
those markets. The loss of competition from
the acquisition likely would have resulted in
higher premiums and reduced benefits and
services in the relevant geographic markets.
Simultaneously with the filing of the
Complaint, the United States filed a proposed
Final Judgment and Stipulation signed by the
Plaintiffs and the Defendants consenting to
entry of the proposed Final Judgment after
compliance with the requirements of the
Tunney Act, 15 U.S.C. 16. Pursuant to those
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
requirements, the United States also filed its
Competitive Impact Statement (‘‘CIS’’) with
the Court on March 27, 2012; published the
proposed Final Judgment and CIS in the
Federal Register on April 4, 2012, see 77 FR
20419; and had summaries of the terms of the
proposed Final Judgment and CIS, together
with directions for the submission of written
comments relating to the proposed Final
Judgment, published in The Washington Post
on May 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of 2012. The
sixty-day period for public comment ended
on July 9, 2012. The United States received
one comment, as described below and
attached hereto.
II. The Investigation and the Proposed
Resolution
The proposed Final Judgment is the
culmination of an investigation by the
Antitrust Division of the United States
Department of Justice (‘‘Department’’) of the
Agreement between defendants described
above. As part of its investigation, the
Department issued seven Civil Investigative
Demands and conducted more than fiftythree interviews of health-insurance
competitors, brokers, customers, and other
individuals with knowledge of the healthinsurance industry. The Department carefully
analyzed the information obtained and
thoroughly considered all of the issues
presented.
The Department found that, in each
relevant geographic market, the proposed
acquisition would have eliminated
substantial head-to-head competition
between Humana and Arcadian in the
provision of Medicare Advantage plans. This
competition significantly benefited
thousands of seniors. If Defendants had
completed the proposed transaction as
structured, the loss of competition likely
would have resulted in higher premiums and
reduced benefits for seniors enrolled in
Medicare Advantage plans in the relevant
geographic markets.
After reviewing the investigative materials,
the Department determined that the proposed
transaction violated Section 7 of the Clayton
Act, 15. U.S.C. 18. The proposed Final
Judgment will eliminate the anticompetitive
effects identified in the Complaint by
requiring the Defendants to divest Arcadian’s
individual Medicare Advantage business in
34 of the 45 relevant geographic markets, and
Humana’s individual Medicare Advantage
business in 11 of them (collectively ‘‘the
Divestiture Assets’’) to one or more acquirers
approved by, and on terms acceptable to, the
United States. Specifically, the divestitures
will eliminate the anticompetitive effects
alleged in the Complaint by requiring the
Defendants to divest one or more Medicare
Advantage plans in each relevant geographic
market to an acquirer that will compete
vigorously with the merged HumanaArcadian. The divestitures are designed to
allow the acquirers of the assets to offer
uninterrupted care to members of Arcadian’s
and Humana’s divested Medicare Advantage
plans.
The Divestiture Assets include all of
Arcadian’s and Humana’s rights and
obligations under the relevant Arcadian or
Humana contracts with the Center for
E:\FR\FM\13SEN1.SGM
13SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 178 (Thursday, September 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56672-56674]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22517]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-784]
Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing the Same;
Determination To Review a Final Initial Determination in Part and Set a
Schedule for Filing Written Submissions on the Issues 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 July 9, 2012, in the above-captioned investigation.
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) 205-3115. 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
under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C.
1337, on July 11, 2011, based on two complaints filed by OSRAM GmbH of
Munich, Germany (``OSRAM''), alleging, inter alia, a violation of
section 337 in the importation, sale for importation, and sale within
the United States after importation of certain light-emitting diodes
and products containing same by reason of infringement of certain
claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,849,881 (``the `881 patent''); 6,975,011
(``the `011 patent''); 7,106,090 (``the `090 patent''); 7,151,283
(``the `283 patent''); and 7,271,425 (``the `425 patent''). 76 FR 40746
(July 11,
[[Page 56673]]
2011). Subsequently, the `881, the `090, and the `011, as well as
certain claims of the `283 and `425 patents, were terminated from the
investigation. The respondents are LG Electronics and LG Innotek Co.,
Ltd., both of Seoul, Republic of Korea; LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. of
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey; and LG Innotek U.S.A., Inc. of San Diego,
California (collectively, ``LG''). Id. The Office of Unfair Import
Investigations was not named as a party to the investigation.
The evidentiary hearing in this investigation was held from April
26 through May 2, 2012. On July 9, 2012, the ALJ issued the final ID
finding a violation of section 337. The ALJ issued his recommended
determination on remedy and bonding on July 23, 2012. Respondent LG
filed a timely petition for review of various portions of the final ID,
and complainant OSRAM filed a timely response to the petition.
Having examined the record in this investigation, including the
ALJ's final ID, the petition for review, and the response thereto, the
Commission has determined to review:
(I) The ALJ's determination that OSRAM met the economic prong of
the domestic industry requirement with respect to both asserted
patents;
(II) With respect to the `283 patent:
(a) the ALJ's determination that claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 22, 24, 25,
26, 29, 32, 33, and 34 of the `283 patent are not rendered obvious in
view of prior art references Japanese Patent (``JP'') 345, JP 609, JP
794, and Hewes;
(b) the ALJ's determination that claim 34 of the `283 patent is not
rendered obvious in view of prior art references Nikkei Article,
Stevenson, Blasse, and Hewes;
(c) the ALJ's determination that claim 34 of the `283 patent is not
rendered obvious in view of prior art references JP 609, Nikkei
Article, Blasse, and Hewes.
The Commission has determined not to review the remainder of the
final ID. The parties are requested to brief their positions on only
the following issues, with reference to the applicable law and the
evidentiary record:
(1) With respect to the economic prong of the domestic industry
requirement:
(a) Please identify the record evidence showing that the products
on which OSRAM relies for the purpose of demonstrating that it met the
economic prong of the domestic industry requirement are protected by
the `283 patent, as required by 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3);
(b) Please identify the record evidence showing that, with respect
to its products protected by the `283 patent, OSRAM made qualifying
investments in the `283 patent's exploitation, including engineering,
research and development, as required by 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C);
(c) Please identify the record evidence showing that OSRAM's
qualifying investment in the `283 patent's exploitation, including
engineering, research and development, with respect to OSRAM's products
protected by the `283 patent is substantial, as required by 19 U.S.C.
1337(a)(3)(C).
(2) With respect to the `283 patent:
(a) Does the record evidence, including the disclosure in JP 609
(see RX-105), and OSRAM's arguments made before the European Patent
Office (see RX-118) and USPTO (see RX-10002), show that JP 609 teaches
a ``partial conversion'' of light?
(b) Does the record evidence, including the disclosure in the
Nikkei Article (see RX-108), and OSRAM's arguments made before the
European Patent Office (see RX-118), show that the Nikkei Article
teaches a ``partial conversion'' of light?
(c) Assuming the evidence demonstrates that JP 609 or the Nikkei
Article discloses partial conversion, please identify the record
evidence that demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to combine: (i) JP 345 (see RX-107), JP 609, JP 794
(see RX-106), and Hewes (see RX-101); (ii) the Nikkei Article,
Stevenson (see RX-109), Blasse (see RX-110), and Hewes; or (iii) JP
609, the Nikkei Article, Blasse, and Hewes, to arrive at the claimed
inventions of the `283 patent.
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 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 are likely to do so. For
background, see Certain Devices for Connecting Computers via Telephone
Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-360, USITC Pub. No. 2843, Comm'n Op. at 7-10
(Dec. 1994).
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 President has 60
days to approve or disapprove the Commission's action. During this
period, the subject articles would be entitled to enter the United
States under bond, in an amount determined by the Commission and
prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Commission is
therefore interested in receiving submissions concerning the amount of
the bond that should be imposed.
Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation are requested
to file written submissions on the issues under review. The submissions
should be concise and thoroughly referenced to the record in this
investigation. Parties to the investigation, interested government
agencies, and any other interested persons 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. Complainant is also requested to
submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission's consideration.
Complainant is further requested to provide the expiration date of the
`283 patent and state the HTSUS subheading(s) under which the accused
articles are imported. The written submissions and proposed remedial
orders must be filed no later than the close of business on September
21, 2012. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of
business on September 28, 2012. No further submissions on these issues
will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document
electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8
true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day
pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR
[[Page 56674]]
210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (``Inv.
No. 337-TA-784'') in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the
first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf). Persons with questions regarding 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. A
redacted non-confidential version of the document must also be filed
simultaneously with the any confidential filing. All non-confidential
written submissions will be available for public inspection at the
Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.
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 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 210.42-.46).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: September 7, 2012.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-22517 Filed 9-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
