Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent Decree, 22900-22901 [2013-08969]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
22900
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 17, 2013 / Notices
U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Sling Media,
Inc. of Foster City, California. The
complaint alleges violations of section
337 based upon the importation into the
United States, the sale for importation,
and the sale within the United States
after importation of certain electronic
devices having placeshifting or display
replication functionality and products
containing same by reason of
infringement of certain claims of U.S.
Patent No. 7,877,776 (‘‘the ‘776 patent’’);
U.S. Patent No. 8,051,454 (‘‘the ‘454
patent’’); U.S. Patent No. 8,060,909 (‘‘the
‘909 patent’’); U.S. Patent No. 7,725,912
(‘‘the ‘912 patent’’); U.S. Patent No.
8,266,657 (‘‘the ‘657 patent’’); and U.S.
Patent No. 8,365,236 (‘‘the ‘236 patent’’).
The complaint further alleges that an
industry in the United States exists as
required by subsection (a)(2) of section
337.
The complainant requests that the
Commission institute an investigation
and, after the investigation, issue an
exclusion order and cease and desist
orders.
The complaint, except for
any confidential information contained
therein, is 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., Room
112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone
(202) 205–2000. Hearing impaired
individuals are advised that information
on this matter can be obtained by
contacting the Commission’s TDD
terminal on (202) 205–1810. Persons
with mobility impairments who will
need special assistance in gaining access
to the Commission should contact the
Office of the Secretary at (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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Docket Services, U.S. International
Trade Commission, telephone (202)
205–1802.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
ADDRESSES:
Authority: The authority for institution of
this investigation is contained in section 337
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and
in section 210.10 of the Commission’s Rules
of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10
(2012).
Scope of Investigation: Having
considered the complaint, the U.S.
International Trade Commission, on
April 10, 2013, ordered that—
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:50 Apr 16, 2013
Jkt 229001
amended, an investigation be instituted
to determine whether there is a
violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of
section 337 in the importation into the
United States, the sale for importation,
or the sale within the United States after
importation of certain electronic devices
having placeshifting or display
replication functionality and products
containing same by reason of
infringement of one or more of claims
18–24, 26, 28–30, 32–40, 42, and 43 of
the ‘776 patent; claims 7, 9–12, 14, 15,
and 17 of the ‘909 patent; claims 1, 2,
4, and 6–20 of the ‘454 patent; claims
58–68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 103, 104, 106, and
108 of the ‘912 patent; claim 81 of the
‘657 patent; and claims 1–8 and 15–20
of the ‘236 patent, and whether an
industry in the United States exists as
required by subsection (a)(2) of section
337;
(2) For the purpose of the
investigation so instituted, the following
are hereby named as parties upon which
this notice of investigation shall be
served:
(a) The complainant is:
Sling Media, Inc., 1051 East Hillsdale
Boulevard, Suite 500, Foster City, CA
94404.
(b) The respondents are the following
entities alleged to be in violation of
section 337, and are the parties upon
which the complaint is to be served:
Belkin International, Inc., 12045 East
Waterfront Drive, Playa Vista, CA
90094.
Monsoon Multimedia, Inc., 1730
South Amphlett Boulevard, Suite 101,
San Mateo, CA 94402.
C2 Microsystems, Inc., 2833 Junction
Avenue, Suite 101, San Jose, CA 95134.
(3) For the investigation so instituted,
the Chief Administrative Law Judge,
U.S. International Trade Commission,
shall designate the presiding
Administrative Law Judge.
The Office of Unfair Import
Investigations will not participate as a
party in this investigation.
Responses to the complaint and the
notice of investigation must be
submitted by the named respondents in
accordance with section 210.13 of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to
19 CFR 201.16(d)–(e) and 210.13(a),
such responses will be considered by
the Commission if received not later
than 20 days after the date of service by
the Commission of the complaint and
the notice of investigation. Extensions of
time for submitting responses to the
complaint and the notice of
investigation will not be granted unless
good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely
response to each allegation in the
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
complaint and in this notice may be
deemed to constitute a waiver of the
right to appear and contest the
allegations of the complaint and this
notice, and to authorize the
administrative law judge and the
Commission, without further notice to
the respondent, to find the facts to be as
alleged in the complaint and this notice
and to enter an initial determination
and a final determination containing
such findings, and may result in the
issuance of an exclusion order or a cease
and desist order or both directed against
the respondent.
Issued: April 11, 2013.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013–08964 Filed 4–16–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent
Decree
In accordance with Departmental
Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby
given that a proposed Consent Decree in
United States v. John F. Ashe, Jr.,
Dianne Ashe, and Wayne D. Raether, d/
b/a County Line Grading, Civil Action
No.13–cv–246, was lodged with the
United States District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin on April
10, 2013.
This proposed Consent Decree
concerns a complaint filed by the
United States against John F. Ashe, Jr.,
Dianne Ashe, and Wayne D. Raether, d/
b/a County Line Grading, pursuant to
Section 309(b) of the Clean Water Act,
33 U.S.C. 1319(b), to obtain injunctive
relief from the Defendants for violating
the Clean Water Act by discharging
pollutants without a permit into waters
of the United States. The proposed
Consent Decree resolves these
allegations by requiring the Defendants
to restore the impacted areas.
The Department of Justice will accept
written comments relating to this
proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30)
days from the date of publication of this
Notice. Please address comments to
Laurel A. Bedig, United States
Department of Justice, Environment and
Natural Resources Division,
Environmental Defense Section, P.O.
Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044 and
refer to United States v. John F. Ashe,
Jr., Dianne Ashe, and Wayne D. Raether,
d/b/a County Line Grading, DJ # 90–5–
1–1–19322.
The proposed Consent Decree may be
examined at the Clerk’s Office, United
E:\FR\FM\17APN1.SGM
17APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 17, 2013 / Notices
States District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin, Robert W.
Kastenmeier United States Courthouse,
120 North Henry Street, Room 320,
Madison, WI 53703–2559. In addition,
the proposed Consent Decree may be
examined electronically at https://
www.justice.gov/enrd/
Consent_Decrees.html.
Cherie L. Rogers,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental
Defense Section, Environment and Natural
Resources Division.
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
United States v. Chiropractic
Associates, Ltd. of South Dakota
Proposed Final Judgment and
Competitive Impact Statement
Notice is hereby given pursuant to the
Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act,
15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h), that a proposed
Final Judgment, Stipulation, and
Competitive Impact Statement have
been filed with the United States
District Court for the District of South
Dakota in United States of America v.
Chiropractic Associates Ltd, of South
Dakota, (CASD), Civil Case No. 13–CV–
4030–LLP. On April 8, 2013, the United
States filed a Complaint alleging that
CASD and its members formed a
conspiracy to gain more favorable fees
and other contractual terms by agreeing
to coordinate their actions, in violation
of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15
U.S.C. 1. The proposed Final Judgment,
filed at the same time as the Complaint,
enjoins CASD from establishing prices
or terms for chiropractic services.
Copies of the Complaint, proposed
Final Judgment, and Competitive Impact
Statement are available for inspection at
the Department of Justice, Antitrust
Division, Antitrust Documents Group,
450 Fifth Street, NW., Suite 1010,
Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: 202–
514–2481), 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 South Dakota.
Copies of these materials may be
obtained from the Antitrust Division
upon request and payment of the
copying fee set by Department of Justice
regulations.
Public comment is invited within 60
days of the date of this notice. Such
comments, and responses thereto, will
be filed with the Court and posted on
the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust
16:50 Apr 16, 2013
Jkt 229001
Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement.
Complaint
The United States of America, acting
under the direction of the Attorney
General of the United States, brings this
civil antitrust action against Defendant
Chiropractic Associates, Ltd. of South
Dakota (‘‘CASD’’ or the ‘‘Defendant’’) to
obtain equitable and other relief to
prevent and remedy violations of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
1. Plaintiff alleges as follows:
[FR Doc. 2013–08969 Filed 4–16–13; 8:45 am]
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Division’s Web site, and, under certain
circumstances, published in the Federal
Register. Comments should be directed
to Peter J. Mucchetti, Chief, Litigation I
Section, Antitrust Division, U.S.
Department of Justice, 450 Fifth Street
NW., Suite 4100, Washington, DC 20530
(telephone: 202–307–0001).
I. Nature of the Action
1. CASD is an association of
approximately 300 chiropractors who
compete with each other in the sale of
chiropractic services. CASD’s members
compromise approximately 80 percent
of all chiropractors practicing in South
Dakota. On behalf of its members, CASD
contracts with health insurers and other
payers (collectively, ‘‘payers’’).
2. Since 1997, all of CASD’s members
have entered into membership
agreements with CASD that give CASD
the right to collectively negotiate rates
on their behalf with payers.
3. Since 1997, CASD has negotiated
contracts on behalf of its members with
at least seven payers. These contracts set
the prices and price-related terms
between CASD’s members and those
payers. CASD’s conduct has raised the
prices of chiropractic services and
decreased the availability of
chiropractic services in South Dakota.
4. The United States, through this
suit, asks this Court to declare CASD’s
conduct illegal and to enter injunctive
relief to prevent further injury to
consumers of chiropractic services.
II. Defendant
5. CASD is a company organized and
doing business under the laws of the
State of South Dakota, with its principal
place of business in Brookings.
III. Jurisdiction, Venue, and Interstate
Commerce
6. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant
to Section 4 of the Sherman Act, 15
U.S.C. § 4, to obtain equitable and other
relief to prevent and restrain the
Defendant’s violations of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1.
7. The Court has subject-matter
jurisdiction over this action under
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
22901
Section 4 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
4, and 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1337(a), and
1345.
8. The Defendant has consented to
personal jurisdiction and venue in this
District. The Court also has personal
jurisdiction over the Defendant, and
venue is proper in the District of South
Dakota under Section 12 of the Clayton
Act, 15 U.S.C. 22, and 28 U.S.C. 1391(b),
because the Defendant is found, has
transacted business, and committed acts
in furtherance of the alleged violations
in this District. A substantial part of the
events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims
occurred in this District.
9. The Defendant engages in interstate
commerce, and its activities—including
the conduct alleged in this Complaint—
substantially affect interstate commerce.
The Defendant’s conduct increased
prices for chiropractic services that
some non-South Dakota residents
traveled to South Dakota to purchase,
and for which a number of payers paid
across state lines.
IV. Other Conspirators
10. Various persons not named as
defendants in this action have
participated as conspirators with the
Defendant in the offenses alleged and
have performed acts and made
statements in furtherance of the alleged
conspiracies.
V. Defendant’s Illegal Conduct
11. Since 1997, CASD has required
that chiropractors joining the
association enter into a membership
agreement (called a ‘‘Provider
Agreement’’) that authorizes CASD to
negotiate the fees that CASD’s
chiropractors charge payers for healthcare related services and products.
12. For years, CASD has had a stated
goal of leveraging its contracts with a
large share of South Dakota
chiropractors to negotiate higher fees
from payers for chiropractor members.
One CASD official stated that ‘‘the first
thing that we felt was very important to
us was to establish a fair reimbursement
for a full scope of practice.’’ Thus,
CASD sought to ‘‘[h]ave a membership
large enough to negotiate fair and
equitable contracts with insurance
companies, including Fair Fee
Schedules (minimum of 130% of
Medicare)[.]’’
13. Since 1997, CASD has negotiated
at least seven contracts with payers that
fix the prices and other price-related
terms for all CASD members dealing
with those payers. In these negotiations,
CASD, acting on behalf of its members,
made proposals and counterproposals
on price and price-related terms,
accepted and rejected offers, and
E:\FR\FM\17APN1.SGM
17APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 74 (Wednesday, April 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22900-22901]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08969]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent Decree
In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is
hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in United States v. John F.
Ashe, Jr., Dianne Ashe, and Wayne D. Raether, d/b/a County Line
Grading, Civil Action No.13-cv-246, was lodged with the United States
District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin on April 10, 2013.
This proposed Consent Decree concerns a complaint filed by the
United States against John F. Ashe, Jr., Dianne Ashe, and Wayne D.
Raether, d/b/a County Line Grading, pursuant to Section 309(b) of the
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1319(b), to obtain injunctive relief from
the Defendants for violating the Clean Water Act by discharging
pollutants without a permit into waters of the United States. The
proposed Consent Decree resolves these allegations by requiring the
Defendants to restore the impacted areas.
The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to
this proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30) days from the date of
publication of this Notice. Please address comments to Laurel A. Bedig,
United States Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources
Division, Environmental Defense Section, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC
20044 and refer to United States v. John F. Ashe, Jr., Dianne Ashe, and
Wayne D. Raether, d/b/a County Line Grading, DJ 90-5-1-1-
19322.
The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Clerk's Office,
United
[[Page 22901]]
States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Robert W.
Kastenmeier United States Courthouse, 120 North Henry Street, Room 320,
Madison, WI 53703-2559. In addition, the proposed Consent Decree may be
examined electronically at https://www.justice.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html.
Cherie L. Rogers,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Defense Section, Environment and
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 2013-08969 Filed 4-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
