Certain Kinesiotherapy Devices and Components Thereof; Commission Determination To Review the Final Initial Determination of the Administrative Law Judge and To Extend the Target Date for Completion of the Investigation by Two Weeks to June 7, 2013, 19309-19311 [2013-07297]

Agencies

• INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 61 (Friday, March 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19309-19311]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07297]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-823]


Certain Kinesiotherapy Devices and Components Thereof; Commission 
Determination To Review the Final Initial Determination of the 
Administrative Law Judge and To Extend the Target Date for Completion 
of the Investigation by Two Weeks to June 7, 2013

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined to review the final initial determination 
(``final ID'' or ``ID'') of the presiding administrative law judge 
(``ALJ'') in its entirety in the above-captioned investigation under 
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 
(``section 337''). The ALJ found no violation of section 337. The 
Commission has further determined to extend the target date for 
completion of the investigation by two weeks to June 7, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael K. Haldenstein, Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3041. 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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation 
on January 10, 2012, based on a complaint filed by Standard Innovation 
Corporation of Ottawa, ON, Canada and Standard Innovation (US) Corp. of 
Wilmington, Delaware (collectively, ``Standard Innovation''). 77 FR 
1504 (Jan. 10, 2012). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 19 U.S.C. 1337,

[[Page 19310]]

by reason of infringement of certain claims of United States Patent 
Nos. 7,931,605 (``the `605 patent'') and D605,779 (``the '779 
patent''). The complaint named twenty one business entities as 
respondents, several of which have since been terminated from the 
investigation based upon consent order stipulations. On July 25, 2012, 
the Commission determined not to review an ID (Order No. 25) granting 
Standard Innovation's motion to withdraw the '779 patent from the 
investigation.
    An evidentiary hearing was held from August 21, 2012, to August 24, 
2012.
    On January 8, 2013, the ALJ issued a final ID finding no violation 
of section 337. The ALJ also issued a recommended determination on 
remedy and bonding on January 22, 2013. Specifically, the ALJ found 
that Standard Innovation had not satisfied the economic prong of the 
domestic industry requirement. The ALJ found, however, that the accused 
products infringe the asserted claims, that the asserted claims were 
not shown to be invalid, and that the technical prong of the domestic 
industry requirement was shown to be satisfied.
    On January 22, 2013, Standard Innovation and the Commission 
investigative attorney filed petitions for review of the final ID. Also 
on January 22, 2013, the respondents remaining in the investigation 
(Lelo Inc., Leloi AB, PHE, Inc. d/b/a Adam & Eve, Nalpac Enterprises, 
Ltd. d/b/a/Nalpac, Ltd., E.TC. Inc. d/b/a Eldorado Trading Company, 
Inc., Williams Trading Co. Inc., Honey's Place Inc. and Lover's Lane & 
Co.) filed a joint contingent petition for review. On January 30, 2013, 
the parties filed responses to the petitions.
    Having examined the final ID, the petitions for review, the 
responses thereto, and the relevant portions of the record in this 
investigation, the Commission has determined to review the final ID in 
its entirety. The Commission has further determined to extend the 
target date for completion of the investigation by two weeks to June 7, 
2013.
    The parties are requested to brief their positions on only the 
following questions, with reference to the applicable law and the 
evidentiary record:
    1. Please provide evidentiary support in the record showing U.S. 
investments relating to the components that are relied on by 
complainant to meet the domestic industry requirement, including as 
appropriate information relating to component providers, contractors, 
and subcontractors.
    2. Please comment on the significance of the relative contribution 
of domestic inputs as compared to total production (domestic and 
foreign) of complainant's products alleged to practice the `605 patent.
    3. Please provide evidentiary support in the record regarding 
whether the U.S. investments alleged by complainant are significant or 
substantial in the context of the complainant's business, the relevant 
industry, and market realities.
    4. Please explain how component purchasing expenditures for U.S. 
components not made specifically for the domestic industry products 
constitute an investment in plant and equipment, employment of labor or 
capital, or an investment in exploitation under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3).
    In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the 
Commission may issue (1) an order that could result in the exclusion of 
the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2) 
cease and desist orders that could result in respondents 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 
information, see the Commission Opinion, Certain Devices for Connecting 
Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-360.
    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 U.S. Trade 
Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve 
or disapprove the Commission's action. See Presidential Memorandum of 
July 21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). 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 if a remedy is ordered.
    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, including references to exhibits and testimony. 
Additionally, the 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 ALJ's recommended 
determination on remedy and bonding. Complainant and the Commission 
investigative attorney are also requested to submit proposed remedial 
orders for the Commission's consideration. Complainant is requested to 
supply the expiration date of the patent at issue and the HTSUS numbers 
under which the accused products are imported. The written submissions 
and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than the close of 
business on April 8, 2013, and should be no more than 25 pages. Reply 
submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on April 
15, 2013, and should be no more than 15 pages. No further submissions 
will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.
    Persons filing written submissions must do so in accordance with 
Commission rule 210.4(f), 19 CFR 210.4(f), which requires electronic 
filing. The original document and eight true copies thereof must also 
be filed on or before the deadlines stated above with the Office of the 
Secretary. Any person desiring to submit a document (or portion 
thereof) to the Commission in confidence must request confidential 
treatment unless the information has already been granted such 
treatment during the proceedings. All such requests should be directed 
to the Secretary of 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 is granted by the 
Commission will be treated accordingly. All nonconfidential written 
submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of 
the Secretary.

[[Page 19311]]

    This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and under sections 
210.42-.46, .51(a) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure 
(19 CFR 210.42-.46, .51(a)).

     Issued: March 25, 2013.
    By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013-07297 Filed 3-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P