Certain Protective Cases and Components Thereof; Notice of the Commission's Final Determination; Issuance of a General Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Orders; Termination of the Investigation, 66632-66633 [2012-26995]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
66632
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 215 / Tuesday, November 6, 2012 / Notices
Issued: November 1, 2012.
William R. Bishop,
Supervisory Hearings and Information
Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012–27144 Filed 11–2–12; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–780]
Certain Protective Cases and
Components Thereof; Notice of the
Commission’s Final Determination;
Issuance of a 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 found a violation of
section 337 in this investigation and has
(1) issued a general exclusion order
prohibiting importation of infringing
protective cases and components thereof
and (2) issued cease and desist orders
direct to domestic respondents.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–3042. Copies of non-confidential
documents filed in connection with this
investigation are or will be available for
inspection during official business
hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the
Office of the Secretary, U.S.
International Trade Commission, 500 E
Street SW., Washington, DC 20436,
telephone (202) 205–2000. General
information concerning the Commission
may also be obtained by accessing its
Internet server at https://www.usitc.gov.
The public record for this investigation
may be viewed on the Commission’s
electronic docket (EDIS) at https://
edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired
persons are advised that information on
this matter can be obtained by
contacting the Commission’s TDD
terminal on (202) 205–1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Commission instituted this investigation
on June 30, 2011, based on a complaint
filed by Otter Products, LLC of Fort
Collins, Colorado (‘‘Otter’’). 76 FR 38417
(June 30, 2011). 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
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Nov 05, 2012
Jkt 229001
certain protective cases and components
thereof by reason of infringement of
some or all of the claims of United
States Patent Nos. D600,908 (‘‘the D908
patent’’); D617,784 (‘‘the D784 patent’’);
D615,536 (‘‘the D536 patent’’); D617,785
(‘‘the D785 patent’’); D634,741 (‘‘the
D741 patent’’); D636,386 (‘‘the D386
patent’’); and claims 1, 5–7, 13, 15, 17,
19–21, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30–32, 37, 38, 42,
and 44 of United States Patent No.
7,933,122 (‘‘the ’122 patent’’); and
United States Trademark Registration
Nos. 3,788,534; 3,788,535; 3,623,789;
and 3,795,187. Id. The notice of
investigation named the following
respondents: A.G. Findings and Mfg.
Co., Inc. of Sunrise, Florida (‘‘A.G.
Findings’’); AFC Trident Inc. of Chino,
California (‘‘AFC Trident’’);
Alibaba.com Hong Kong Ltd. of
Hangzhou, China (‘‘Alibaba.com’’);
Anbess Electronics Co. Ltd. of
Schenzhen, China (‘‘Anbess’’); Cellairis
Franchise, Inc. of Alpharetta, Georgia
(‘‘Cellairis’’); Cellet Products of Sante Fe
Springs, California (‘‘Cellet’’);
DHgate.com of Beijing, China
(‘‘Dhgate.com’’); Griffin Technology,
Inc. of Nashville, Tennessee (‘‘Griffin’’);
Guangzhou Evotech Industry Co., Ltd. of
Guangdong, China (‘‘Guangzhou
Evotech’’); Hard Candy Cases LLC of
Sacramento, California (‘‘Hard Candy’’);
Hoffco Brands, Inc. of Wheat Ridge,
Colorado (‘‘Hoffco’’); Hong Kong Better
Technology Group Ltd. of Shenzhen,
China (‘‘Better Technology Group’’);
Hong Kong HJJ Co. Ltd. of Shenzhen,
China (‘‘HJJ’’); Hypercel Corporation of
Valencia, California (‘‘Hypercel’’);
InMotion Entertainment of Jacksonville,
Florida (‘‘InMotion’’); MegaWatts
Computers, LLC of Tulsa, Oklahoma
(‘‘MegaWatts’’); National Cellular of
Brooklyn, New York (‘‘National
Cellular’’); OEMBargain.com of
Wantagh, New York
(‘‘OEMBargain.com’’; One Step Up Ltd.
of New York, New York (‘‘One Step
Up’’); Papaya Holdings Ltd. of Central,
Hong Kong (‘‘Papaya’’); Quanyun
Electronics Co., Ltd. of Shenzhen, China
(‘‘Quanyun’’); ShenZhen Star & Way
Trade Co., Ltd. of Guangzhou City,
China (‘‘Star & Way’’); Sinatech
Industries Co., Ltd. of Guangzhou City,
China (‘‘Sinatech’’); SmileCase of
Windsor Mill, Maryland (‘‘SmileCase’’);
Suntel Global Investment Ltd. of
Guangzhou, China (‘‘Suntel’’);
TheCaseInPoint.com of Titusville,
Florida (‘‘TheCaseInPoint’’);
TheCaseSpace of Fort Collins, Colorado
(‘‘TheCaseSpace’’); Topter Technology
Co., Ltd. of Guangdong, China
(‘‘Topter’’); and Trait Technology
(Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. of Shenzhen, China
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(‘‘Trait Technology’’). Id. With respect
to accused products by Respondent
Griffin, Otter asserted only the ’122
patent.
On August 3, 2011, the ALJ issued an
ID granting Otter leave to amend the
complaint and notice of investigation to
add Global Cellular, Inc. of Alpharetta,
Georgia (‘‘Global Cellular’’) as a
respondent. See Order No. 3 (August 3,
2011). The Commission determined not
to review the order. See Notice of
Commission Determination not to
Review an Initial Determination
Granting Complainant’s Motion to
Amend the Complaint and Notice of
Investigation to Add a Respondent
(August 18, 2011).
The following respondents were
terminated from the investigation based
on settlement agreements, consent
orders, or withdrawal of allegations
from the complaint: One Step Up,
InMotion, Hard Candy, DHGate.com,
Alibaba.com, A.G. Findings, Cellairis,
Global Cellular, AFC Trident, Better
Technology Group, and
OEMBargain.com. The following
respondents were found in default:
Anbess, Guangzhou Evotech, Hoffco,
HJJ, Sinatech, Suntel, Trait Technology,
Papaya, Quanyun, Topter, Cellet,
TheCaseSpace, MegaWatts, Hypercel,
Star & Way, SmileCase, TheCaseInpoint,
and National Cellular (collectively
‘‘Defaulting Respondents’’). Griffin is
the only remaining respondent not
found in default, and the only
respondent that appeared before the
Commission.
On June 29, 2012, the ALJ issued his
final ID, finding a violation of section
337 by Griffin and the Defaulting
Respondents. Specifically, the ALJ
found that the Commission has subject
matter jurisdiction: in rem jurisdiction
over the accused products and in
personam jurisdiction over the
respondents. ID at 45–46. The ALJ also
found that the importation requirements
of section 337 (19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(B),
(C)) have been satisfied. Id. at 38–45.
Regarding infringement, the ALJ found
that the Defaulting Respondents’
accused products infringe the asserted
claims of the asserted patents and the
asserted trademarks. Id. at 62–88. The
ALJ further found that Griffin’s accused
products, the Griffin survivor for iPad 2
and Griffin Explorer for iPhone 4,
literally infringe the asserted claims of
the ’122 patent but that the Griffin
Survivor for iPhone 4 and Griffin
Survivor for iPod Touch do not literally
infringe the asserted claims of the ’122
patent. Id. at 64–78. The ALJ concluded
that an industry exists within the
United States for the asserted patents
E:\FR\FM\06NON1.SGM
06NON1
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 215 / Tuesday, November 6, 2012 / Notices
and trademarks as required by 19 U.S.C.
1337(a)(2). Id. at 89–108.
On July 16, 2012, Otter filed a petition
for review of the ID. That same day, the
Commission investigative attorney filed
a petition for review. On July 17, 2012,
Griffin filed a petition for review (the
Commission granted Griffin’s motion for
leave to file its petition one day late).
On July 24, 2012, the parties filed
responses to the petitions for review.
On August 30, 2012, 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. 77 FR 54924 (Sept. 6, 2012).
Specifically, the Commission
determined to review the finding that
the accused Griffin Survivor for iPod
Touch does not literally infringe the
asserted claims of the ’122 patent.
On September 14, 2012, the parties
filed written submissions on the issue
under review, remedy, the public
interest, and bonding. On September 21,
2012, the parties filed reply
submissions.
Having examined the record of this
investigation, including the ALJ’s final
ID, the Commission has determined to
reverse the ALJ’s finding that the
accused Griffin Survivor for iPod Touch
does not literally infringe the asserted
claims of the ’122 patent. The
Commission adopts the ALJ’s findings
in all other respects.
Having found a violation of section
337 in this investigation, the
Commission has determined that the
appropriate form of relief is: (1) A
general exclusion order prohibiting the
unlicensed entry of protective cases and
components thereof covered by the
claim of the D908 patent, the D784
patent, the D536 patent, the D785
patent, the D741 patent, or the D386
patent, or one or more of claims 1, 5–
7, 13, 15, 17, 19–21, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30–
32, 37, 38, 42, and 44 of the ’122 patent;
or that infringe one or more of U.S.
Trademark Reg. Nos. 3,788,534,
3,788,535, 3,623,789, or 3,795,187; (2)
cease and desist orders prohibiting
domestic respondents Cellet, Hoffco,
Hypercel, MegaWatts, National Cellular,
SmileCase, TheCaseInPoint, and
TheCaseSpace from conducting any of
the following activities in the United
States, including via internet activity:
importing, selling, marketing,
advertising, distributing, offering for
sale, transferring (except for
exportation), and soliciting U.S. agents
or distributors for, protective cases and
components thereof covered by the
D908 patent, the D784 patent, the D536
patent, the D785 patent, the D741
patent, or the D386 patent, or one or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Nov 05, 2012
Jkt 229001
more of claims 1, 5–7, 13, 15, 17, 19–
21, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30–32, 37, 38, 42, and
44 of the ’122 patent; or that infringe
one or more of U.S. Trademark Reg.
Nos. 3,788,534, 3,788,535, 3,623,789, or
3,795,187; and (3) a cease and desist
order prohibiting Griffin from
conducting any of the following
activities in the United States, including
via internet activity: importing, selling,
marketing, advertising, distributing,
offering for sale, transferring (except for
exportation), and soliciting U.S. agents
or distributors for, protective cases and
components thereof covered by one or
more of claims 1, 5–7, 13, 15, 17, 19–
21, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30–32, 37, 38, 42, and
44 of the ’122 patent.
The Commission has also determined
that the public interest factors
enumerated in section 337(d), (f), and
(g) (19 U.S.C. 1337(d), (f), and (g)) do not
preclude issuance of the general
exclusion order or cease and desist
orders. Finally, the Commission has
determined that for Griffin, a bond in
the amount of 12.45 percent of entered
value for tablet cases and no bond for
non-tablet cases is required to permit
temporary importation during the
period of Presidential review (19 U.S.C.
1337(j)) of its infringing protective cases
and components thereof. For Defaulting
Respondents, the Commission has
determined that a bond of 331.80
percent of entered value for tablet cases
and 245.53 percent of entered value for
non-tablet cases is required to permit
temporary importation during the
period of Presidential review (19 U.S.C.
1337(j)) of protective cases and
components thereof that are subject to
the orders. For all other infringing
products, the Commission has
determined that a bond of 100 percent
of entered value is required to permit
temporary importation during the
period of Presidential review (19 U.S.C.
1337(j)) of protective cases and
components thereof that are subject to
the general exclusion order. The
Commission’s orders 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.
Issued: October 31, 2012.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012–26995 Filed 11–5–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
66633
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
and Explosives
[OMB Number 1140–0018]
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comments Requested: Application for
Federal Firearms License
ACTION:
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ),
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
and Explosives (ATF), will be
submitting the following information
collection request to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The proposed information collection is
published to obtain comments from the
public and affected agencies. Comments
are encouraged and will be accepted for
‘‘sixty days’’ until January 7, 2013. This
process is conducted in accordance with
5 CFR 1320.10.
If you have comments especially on
the estimated public burden or
associated response time, suggestions,
or need a copy of the proposed
information collection instrument with
instructions or additional information,
please contact Tracey Robertson, Chief,
Federal Firearms Licensing Center, at
tracey.robertson@atf.gov or 244 Needy
Road, Martinsburg, WV 25405.
Written comments and suggestions
from the public and affected agencies
concerning the proposed collection of
information are encouraged. Your
comments should address one or more
of the following four points:
—Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
—Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s
estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
—Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
—Minimize the burden of the collection
of information on those who are to
respond, including through the use of
appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms
of information technology, e.g.,
permitting electronic submission of
responses.
E:\FR\FM\06NON1.SGM
06NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 215 (Tuesday, November 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66632-66633]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26995]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-780]
Certain Protective Cases and Components Thereof; Notice of the
Commission's Final Determination; Issuance of a 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 found a violation of section 337 in this investigation
and has (1) issued a general exclusion order prohibiting importation of
infringing protective cases and components thereof and (2) issued cease
and desist orders direct to domestic respondents.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3042. Copies of non-
confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are
or will be available for inspection during official business hours
(8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S.
International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436,
telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission
may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed
on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.
Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter
can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202)
205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation
on June 30, 2011, based on a complaint filed by Otter Products, LLC of
Fort Collins, Colorado (``Otter''). 76 FR 38417 (June 30, 2011). 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 protective cases and components thereof by
reason of infringement of some or all of the claims of United States
Patent Nos. D600,908 (``the D908 patent''); D617,784 (``the D784
patent''); D615,536 (``the D536 patent''); D617,785 (``the D785
patent''); D634,741 (``the D741 patent''); D636,386 (``the D386
patent''); and claims 1, 5-7, 13, 15, 17, 19-21, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30-32,
37, 38, 42, and 44 of United States Patent No. 7,933,122 (``the '122
patent''); and United States Trademark Registration Nos. 3,788,534;
3,788,535; 3,623,789; and 3,795,187. Id. The notice of investigation
named the following respondents: A.G. Findings and Mfg. Co., Inc. of
Sunrise, Florida (``A.G. Findings''); AFC Trident Inc. of Chino,
California (``AFC Trident''); Alibaba.com Hong Kong Ltd. of Hangzhou,
China (``Alibaba.com''); Anbess Electronics Co. Ltd. of Schenzhen,
China (``Anbess''); Cellairis Franchise, Inc. of Alpharetta, Georgia
(``Cellairis''); Cellet Products of Sante Fe Springs, California
(``Cellet''); DHgate.com of Beijing, China (``Dhgate.com''); Griffin
Technology, Inc. of Nashville, Tennessee (``Griffin''); Guangzhou
Evotech Industry Co., Ltd. of Guangdong, China (``Guangzhou Evotech'');
Hard Candy Cases LLC of Sacramento, California (``Hard Candy''); Hoffco
Brands, Inc. of Wheat Ridge, Colorado (``Hoffco''); Hong Kong Better
Technology Group Ltd. of Shenzhen, China (``Better Technology Group'');
Hong Kong HJJ Co. Ltd. of Shenzhen, China (``HJJ''); Hypercel
Corporation of Valencia, California (``Hypercel''); InMotion
Entertainment of Jacksonville, Florida (``InMotion''); MegaWatts
Computers, LLC of Tulsa, Oklahoma (``MegaWatts''); National Cellular of
Brooklyn, New York (``National Cellular''); OEMBargain.com of Wantagh,
New York (``OEMBargain.com''; One Step Up Ltd. of New York, New York
(``One Step Up''); Papaya Holdings Ltd. of Central, Hong Kong
(``Papaya''); Quanyun Electronics Co., Ltd. of Shenzhen, China
(``Quanyun''); ShenZhen Star & Way Trade Co., Ltd. of Guangzhou City,
China (``Star & Way''); Sinatech Industries Co., Ltd. of Guangzhou
City, China (``Sinatech''); SmileCase of Windsor Mill, Maryland
(``SmileCase''); Suntel Global Investment Ltd. of Guangzhou, China
(``Suntel''); TheCaseInPoint.com of Titusville, Florida
(``TheCaseInPoint''); TheCaseSpace of Fort Collins, Colorado
(``TheCaseSpace''); Topter Technology Co., Ltd. of Guangdong, China
(``Topter''); and Trait Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. of Shenzhen,
China (``Trait Technology''). Id. With respect to accused products by
Respondent Griffin, Otter asserted only the '122 patent.
On August 3, 2011, the ALJ issued an ID granting Otter leave to
amend the complaint and notice of investigation to add Global Cellular,
Inc. of Alpharetta, Georgia (``Global Cellular'') as a respondent. See
Order No. 3 (August 3, 2011). The Commission determined not to review
the order. See Notice of Commission Determination not to Review an
Initial Determination Granting Complainant's Motion to Amend the
Complaint and Notice of Investigation to Add a Respondent (August 18,
2011).
The following respondents were terminated from the investigation
based on settlement agreements, consent orders, or withdrawal of
allegations from the complaint: One Step Up, InMotion, Hard Candy,
DHGate.com, Alibaba.com, A.G. Findings, Cellairis, Global Cellular, AFC
Trident, Better Technology Group, and OEMBargain.com. The following
respondents were found in default: Anbess, Guangzhou Evotech, Hoffco,
HJJ, Sinatech, Suntel, Trait Technology, Papaya, Quanyun, Topter,
Cellet, TheCaseSpace, MegaWatts, Hypercel, Star & Way, SmileCase,
TheCaseInpoint, and National Cellular (collectively ``Defaulting
Respondents''). Griffin is the only remaining respondent not found in
default, and the only respondent that appeared before the Commission.
On June 29, 2012, the ALJ issued his final ID, finding a violation
of section 337 by Griffin and the Defaulting Respondents. Specifically,
the ALJ found that the Commission has subject matter jurisdiction: in
rem jurisdiction over the accused products and in personam jurisdiction
over the respondents. ID at 45-46. The ALJ also found that the
importation requirements of section 337 (19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(B), (C))
have been satisfied. Id. at 38-45. Regarding infringement, the ALJ
found that the Defaulting Respondents' accused products infringe the
asserted claims of the asserted patents and the asserted trademarks.
Id. at 62-88. The ALJ further found that Griffin's accused products,
the Griffin survivor for iPad 2 and Griffin Explorer for iPhone 4,
literally infringe the asserted claims of the '122 patent but that the
Griffin Survivor for iPhone 4 and Griffin Survivor for iPod Touch do
not literally infringe the asserted claims of the '122 patent. Id. at
64-78. The ALJ concluded that an industry exists within the United
States for the asserted patents
[[Page 66633]]
and trademarks as required by 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(2). Id. at 89-108.
On July 16, 2012, Otter filed a petition for review of the ID. That
same day, the Commission investigative attorney filed a petition for
review. On July 17, 2012, Griffin filed a petition for review (the
Commission granted Griffin's motion for leave to file its petition one
day late). On July 24, 2012, the parties filed responses to the
petitions for review.
On August 30, 2012, 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. 77 FR 54924
(Sept. 6, 2012). Specifically, the Commission determined to review the
finding that the accused Griffin Survivor for iPod Touch does not
literally infringe the asserted claims of the '122 patent.
On September 14, 2012, the parties filed written submissions on the
issue under review, remedy, the public interest, and bonding. On
September 21, 2012, the parties filed reply submissions.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the
ALJ's final ID, the Commission has determined to reverse the ALJ's
finding that the accused Griffin Survivor for iPod Touch does not
literally infringe the asserted claims of the '122 patent. The
Commission adopts the ALJ's findings in all other respects.
Having found a violation of section 337 in this investigation, the
Commission has determined that the appropriate form of relief is: (1) A
general exclusion order prohibiting the unlicensed entry of protective
cases and components thereof covered by the claim of the D908 patent,
the D784 patent, the D536 patent, the D785 patent, the D741 patent, or
the D386 patent, or one or more of claims 1, 5-7, 13, 15, 17, 19-21,
23, 25, 27, 28, 30-32, 37, 38, 42, and 44 of the '122 patent; or that
infringe one or more of U.S. Trademark Reg. Nos. 3,788,534, 3,788,535,
3,623,789, or 3,795,187; (2) cease and desist orders prohibiting
domestic respondents Cellet, Hoffco, Hypercel, MegaWatts, National
Cellular, SmileCase, TheCaseInPoint, and TheCaseSpace from conducting
any of the following activities in the United States, including via
internet activity: importing, selling, marketing, advertising,
distributing, offering for sale, transferring (except for exportation),
and soliciting U.S. agents or distributors for, protective cases and
components thereof covered by the D908 patent, the D784 patent, the
D536 patent, the D785 patent, the D741 patent, or the D386 patent, or
one or more of claims 1, 5-7, 13, 15, 17, 19-21, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30-32,
37, 38, 42, and 44 of the '122 patent; or that infringe one or more of
U.S. Trademark Reg. Nos. 3,788,534, 3,788,535, 3,623,789, or 3,795,187;
and (3) a cease and desist order prohibiting Griffin from conducting
any of the following activities in the United States, including via
internet activity: importing, selling, marketing, advertising,
distributing, offering for sale, transferring (except for exportation),
and soliciting U.S. agents or distributors for, protective cases and
components thereof covered by one or more of claims 1, 5-7, 13, 15, 17,
19-21, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30-32, 37, 38, 42, and 44 of the '122 patent.
The Commission has also determined that the public interest factors
enumerated in section 337(d), (f), and (g) (19 U.S.C. 1337(d), (f), and
(g)) do not preclude issuance of the general exclusion order or cease
and desist orders. Finally, the Commission has determined that for
Griffin, a bond in the amount of 12.45 percent of entered value for
tablet cases and no bond for non-tablet cases is required to permit
temporary importation during the period of Presidential review (19
U.S.C. 1337(j)) of its infringing protective cases and components
thereof. For Defaulting Respondents, the Commission has determined that
a bond of 331.80 percent of entered value for tablet cases and 245.53
percent of entered value for non-tablet cases is required to permit
temporary importation during the period of Presidential review (19
U.S.C. 1337(j)) of protective cases and components thereof that are
subject to the orders. For all other infringing products, the
Commission has determined that a bond of 100 percent of entered value
is required to permit temporary importation during the period of
Presidential review (19 U.S.C. 1337(j)) of protective cases and
components thereof that are subject to the general exclusion order. The
Commission's orders 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.
Issued: October 31, 2012.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-26995 Filed 11-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
