Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent Decree, 57415 [2013-22635]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 18, 2013 / Notices
independently sold Wii MotionPlus and
Nunchuck accessories contributorily
infringe the asserted claim of the ’917
and ’742 patents; (c) anticipation and
obviousness with respect to the asserted
claim of the ’917 patent; (d) obviousness
with respect to the asserted claim of the
’742 patent; and (e) whether CK has
satisfied the technical prong of the
domestic industry requirement with
respect to the ’917 and ’742 patents, and
if necessary, whether CK has satisfied
the economic prong of the domestic
industry requirement with respect to the
’917 and 742 patent in light of the ALJ’s
technical prong determination.
On May 7, 2013, the ALJ issued a
remand ID finding no violation of
section 337. The ALJ found that (i)
Respondents do not infringe claim 7 of
the ’917 patent; (ii) respondents do not
contribute to the infringement of claim
24 of the ’742 patent; (iii) the asserted
claim of the ’917 patent is not invalid
for anticipation; (iv) the asserted claim
of the ’917 patent is not invalid for
obviousness; (v) the asserted claim of
the ’742 patent is not invalid for
obviousness; (vi) complainant has
satisfied the technical prong of the
domestic industry requirement for the
’917 patent; and (vii) complainant has
satisfied the technical prong of the
domestic industry requirement for the
’742 patent. The ALJ determined that it
was unnecessary to revisit his previous
finding in his final ID that complainant
has not satisfied the economic prong of
the domestic industry requirement for
the ’742 and ’917 patents.
On July 8, 2013, the Commission
determined to review the following
issues from the remand ID: (1) Whether
the accused products directly infringe
the asserted claim of the ’917 patent; (2)
whether the independently sold Wii
MotionPlus and Nunchuck accessories
contributorily infringe the asserted
claim of the ’742 patent; (3) nonobviousness of the asserted claim of the
’742 patent; and (4) whether the
technical prong of the domestic industry
requirement is met with respect to the
’917 and ’742 patents. The Commission
noted that the following issues from the
final ID are currently under review: (a)
Whether the accused products directly
infringe the asserted claim of the ’742
patent; (b) validity of the asserted claims
of the ’917 and ’742 patent under the
enablement requirement; (c) validity of
the asserted claims of the ’917 and ’742
patent under the written description
requirement; and (d) whether the
economic prong of the domestic
industry requirement is met with
respect to the ’917 and ’742 patents.
Having examined the record of this
investigation, including the ALJ’s final
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:45 Sep 17, 2013
Jkt 229001
ID, remand ID, and the submissions of
the parties, the Commission has
determined to affirm, with
modifications, the ALJ’s finding of no
violation of Section 337. Specifically,
the Commission has determined to
affirm, with modifications, the ALJ’s
finding that claim 7 of the ’917 patent
and claim 24 of the ’742 patent are
invalid for lack of enablement and for
lack of written description, and that
complainant has not shown that the
domestic industry requirement is met
with respect to the ’917 and ’742
patents. The Commission has
determined that complainant has not
shown that the accused products
directly infringe claim 7 of the ’917
patent because they do not meet the
limitation ‘‘command,’’ and that
complainant has not shown that the
accused products directly infringe claim
24 of the ’742 patent because they do
not meet the limitation ‘‘activate or
control.’’ The Commission has also
determined that complainant has not
shown that the independently sold Wii
MotionPlus and Nunchuck accessories
contributorily infringe claim 24 of the
’742 patent. Lastly, the Commission has
determined that respondent has not
shown that claim 24 of the ’742 patent
is obvious.
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 and
210.50).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: September 12, 2013.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013–22643 Filed 9–17–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
57415
relief from and impose civil penalties
against the Defendant 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 Defendant
to perform mitigation and to pay a civil
penalty.
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
Assistant United States Attorney Adam
J. Katz, James T. Foley Courthouse, 445
Broadway, Room 218, Albany, NY
12207, and refer to United States v.
Stonybrook Land, LLC, USAO #
2010V00052.
The proposed Consent Decree may be
examined at the Clerk’s Office of the
United States District Court for the
Northern District of New York, James T.
Foley Courthouse, 445 Broadway, Suite
509, Albany, NY 12207. 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. 2013–22635 Filed 9–17–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
and Explosives
[OMB Number 1140–NEW]
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comments Requested: Request for
ATF Background Investigation
Information
60-Day Notice.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
ACTION:
Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent
Decree
The Department of Justice (DOJ),
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
and Explosives (ATF), will submit 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 November 18, 2013.
This process is conducted in accordance
with 5 CFR 1320.10.
If you have comments especially on
the estimated public burden or
In accordance with Departmental
Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby
given that a proposed Consent Decree in
United States v. Stonybrook Land, LLC,
Civil Action No. 1:13–CV–1119 (TJM/
RFT), was lodged with the United States
District Court for the Northern District
of New York on September 10, 2013.
This proposed Consent Decree
concerns a complaint filed by the
United States against Defendant
Stonybrook Land, LLC, pursuant to
Clean Water Act Section 404(s), 33
U.S.C. 1344(s), to obtain injunctive
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\18SEN1.SGM
18SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 57415]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22635]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Stonybrook Land, LLC, Civil Action No. 1:13-CV-1119 (TJM/RFT), was
lodged with the United States District Court for the Northern District
of New York on September 10, 2013.
This proposed Consent Decree concerns a complaint filed by the
United States against Defendant Stonybrook Land, LLC, pursuant to Clean
Water Act Section 404(s), 33 U.S.C. 1344(s), to obtain injunctive
relief from and impose civil penalties against the Defendant 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 Defendant to perform
mitigation and to pay a civil penalty.
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 Assistant United
States Attorney Adam J. Katz, James T. Foley Courthouse, 445 Broadway,
Room 218, Albany, NY 12207, and refer to United States v. Stonybrook
Land, LLC, USAO 2010V00052.
The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Clerk's Office
of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New
York, James T. Foley Courthouse, 445 Broadway, Suite 509, Albany, NY
12207. 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. 2013-22635 Filed 9-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
