Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines and Components Thereof Commission Determination To Grant a Joint Motion To Terminate the Investigation on the Basis of a Settlement Agreement, 22834-22835 [2014-09298]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
22834
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 79 / Thursday, April 24, 2014 / Notices
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
complaint filed by Freedom Scientific,
Inc. of St. Petersburg, Florida
(‘‘Freedom’’). 78 FR 68862 (Nov. 15,
2013). The complaint alleged violations
of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended, 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 handheld magnifiers and
products containing same by reason of
infringement of certain claims of U.S.
Design Patent No. D624,107 and U.S.
Patent No. 8,264,598. The Commission’s
notice of investigation named as
respondents Aumed Group Corp. of
Beijing, China, and Aumed Inc. of San
Carlos, California (collectively,
‘‘Aumed’’).
On December 18, 2013, Aumed
moved to terminate the investigation
based upon a consent order stipulation
and proposed consent order. See 19 CFR
210.21(c). Freedom did not oppose the
motion. On December 27, 2013, the
Commission investigative attorney filed
a response in support of the motion. On
February 12, 2014, Aumed filed a
substitute consent order stipulation
executed by Aumed, as opposed to
Aumed counsel.
On March 20, 2014, the ALJ granted
the motion as an ID. Order No. 4 at 3.
The ALJ found that the substitute
consent order stipulation conforms with
Commission Rule 210.21(c)(3), 19 CFR
210.21(c)(3), and that the proposed
consent order is consistent with
Commission Rule 210.21(c)(4), 19 CFR
210.21(c)(4). Order No. 4 at 2. Further,
the ALJ found that the public interest
favored granting Aumed’s motion. Id. at
2–3; see 19 CFR 210.50(b)(2).
No petitions for review were filed.
The Commission has determined not to
review the ID. The Commission has
issued the subject consent order, and
has terminated the investigation.
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 the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR Part 210).
Issued: April 18, 2014.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2014–09297 Filed 4–23–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:19 Apr 23, 2014
Jkt 232001
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–Ta–641 (Remand)]
Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines
and Components Thereof Commission
Determination To Grant a Joint Motion
To Terminate the Investigation on the
Basis of a Settlement Agreement
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to grant a
joint motion to terminate the
investigation on the basis of a settlement
agreement.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James A. Worth, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–3065. 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 the original
investigation on March 31, 2008, based
upon a complaint filed on behalf of
General Electric of Fairfield,
Connecticut (‘‘GE’’) on February 7, 2008.
73 FR 16910. 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 variable speed wind turbines
and components thereof that infringe
claims 121–125 of U.S. Patent No.
5,083,039 (‘‘the ‘039 patent’’) and claims
1–12, 15–18, and 21–28 of U.S. Patent
No. 6,921,985 (‘‘the ‘985 patent’’). The
complaint named as respondents
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. of
Tokyo, Japan and Mitsubishi Power
Systems, Inc. of Lake Mary, Florida
(collectively, ‘‘Mitsubishi’’), and a third
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
entity which was subsequently found
not to import. On October 8, 2008, the
Commission issued notice of its
determination not to review an initial
determination (‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 10)
granting GE’s motion to amend its
complaint and the notice of
investigation to add claims 1–19 of
United States Patent No. 7,321,221 (‘‘the
‘221 patent’’) to the investigation.
On August 7, 2009, the ALJ issued his
final ID finding a violation of section
337. The ALJ found a violation of
section 337 with respect to the ‘039
patent and the ‘985 patent but not the
‘221 patent.
On January 8, 2010, the Commission
issued notice of its final determination
of no violation of section 337 as to all
of these patents. With respect to the ‘985
patent, the Commission found that GE
failed to satisfy the technical prong of
the domestic industry requirement.
GE filed an appeal with the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On
motion by the Commission, the Court
dismissed the appeal as to the ‘039
patent and thereby vacated as moot the
Commission determination as to that
patent. Subsequently, the Court affirmed
the Commission’s determination as to
the ‘221 patent, and reversed the
Commission’s determination that GE
had not satisfied the domestic industry
requirement as to the ‘985 patent. The
opinion originally issued by the Court
contained a further Part III, which
commented on the Commission’s
authority to take no position on an issue
pursuant to Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy,
742 F.2d 1421 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Subsequently, the panel granted a
petition for rehearing, withdrawing Part
III of its Opinion. General Electric Co. v.
Int’l Trade Comm’n, Order, 692 F.3d
1218 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
The Federal Circuit issued its
mandate on August 27, 2012.
Subsequently, the Commission received
numerous unsolicited submissions from
the parties concerning the merits of the
remand. The Commission also received
a motion for sanctions by Mitsubishi
against GE, a response thereto by GE,
and motions for leave to file a reply and
surreply.
On January 2, 2014, GE and
Mitsubishi filed a joint motion to
terminate the investigation on the basis
of a settlement agreement pursuant to
Commission rule 210.21(b), 19 CFR
210.21(b). The parties stated that
termination is in the interest of the
public and administrative economy. On
January 27, 2014, the Office of Unfair
Import Investigations (‘‘OUII’’) filed a
response in opposition, stating that the
public version of the settlement
agreement was overly redacted. On
E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM
24APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 79 / Thursday, April 24, 2014 / Notices
February 7, 2014, the parties resubmitted the public version of the
settlement agreement. On the same day,
OUII wrote a letter to the Secretary to
the Commission, withdrawing its
opposition.
After considering the joint motion,
and the settlement agreement, the
Commission agrees that the joint motion
to terminate is in the interest of the
public, and complies with the
requirements of Commission rule
210.21(b). The Commission has
therefore determined to grant the
motion to terminate the investigation on
the basis of a settlement agreement and
to dismiss the motion for sanctions. The
Commission has further determined to
dismiss as moot the private parties’
motions for leave to file a reply and to
file a surreply and to not accept for
filing any submissions not previously
accepted given that the case has been
mooted by settlement. The investigation
is hereby terminated.
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 Part
210 of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR Part
210).
Issued: April 18, 2014.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2014–09298 Filed 4–23–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–853]
Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Devices,
Products Containing the Same, and
Components Thereof; Notice of
Commission Determination not To
Review an Initial Determination
Terminating the Investigation Based
on a Settlement Agreement;
Termination of Investigation
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined not to
review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’)
(Order No. 12) issued by the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on
March 24, 2014, granting the parties’
motion to terminate the investigation
based on a settlement agreement.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Needham, Office of the General
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:19 Apr 23, 2014
Jkt 232001
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
708–5468. 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 November 13, 2013, based on a
complaint filed by Navico, Inc. and
Navico Holding AS (‘‘Navico’’). 78 FR
68091–92. The complaint alleges
violations of section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337
(‘‘section 337’’), in the importation into
the United States, the sale for
importation, and the sale within the
United States after importation of
certain marine sonar imaging devices,
products containing the same, and
components thereof, by reason of
infringement of certain claims of U.S.
Patent Nos. 8,300,499 and 8,305,840.
The Commission’s notice of
investigation named as respondents
Raymarine, Inc. of Nashua, New
Hampshire; Raymarine UK Ltd. of
Fareham, United Kingdom; and In-Tech
Electronics Ltd. of Hong Kong. The
notice of investigation was later
amended to add as respondents
Raymarine Belgium BVBA, In-Tech
Electronics (Shenzhen) Ltd., and InTech Science & Technology R&D Ltd.
On March 19, 2014, all parties filed a
joint motion to terminate the
investigation based on a settlement
agreement. The parties attached a
settlement agreement, and indicated
that there are no other agreements,
written or oral, express or implied,
between Navico and any of the
respondents concerning the subject
matter of this investigation. The parties
also stated that the termination of the
investigation would not harm the public
interest, and that it is in the interest of
public and administrative economy to
grant the motion.
On March 24, 2014, the ALJ granted
the parties’ motion, and issued the
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
22835
subject ID, terminating the investigation
based on a settlement agreement. The
ALJ found that termination was in the
public interest, and that the motion
complied with applicable Commission
rules. See, e.g., 19 CFR 210.21(a)(2) and
(b)(1), 210.50(b)(2). No petitions for
review were filed.
The Commission has determined not
to review the subject ID.
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 Part
210 of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR Part
210).
Dated: April 21, 2014.
By order of the Commission.
William R. Bishop,
Supervisory Hearings and Information
Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014–09313 Filed 4–23–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[USITC SE–14–012]
Government in The Sunshine Act
Meeting Notice
United
States International Trade Commission.
TIME AND DATE: May 2, 2014 at 11:00
a.m.
PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, Telephone:
(202) 205–2000.
STATUS: Open to the public.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1. Agendas for future meetings: None.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Vote in Inv. No. 731–TA–1206 (Final)
(Diffusion-Annealed, Nickel-Plated
Flat-Rolled Steel Products from
Japan). The Commission is
currently scheduled to complete
and file its determinations and
views of the Commission on May
16, 2014.
5. Outstanding action jackets: None.
In accordance with Commission
policy, subject matter listed above, not
disposed of at the scheduled meeting,
may be carried over to the agenda of the
following meeting.
AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:
By order of the Commission.
Issued: April 21, 2014.
William R. Bishop,
Supervisory Hearings and Information
Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014–09399 Filed 4–22–14; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM
24APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 79 (Thursday, April 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22834-22835]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09298]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-Ta-641 (Remand)]
Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines and Components Thereof
Commission Determination To Grant a Joint Motion To Terminate the
Investigation on the Basis of a Settlement Agreement
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to grant a joint motion to terminate the
investigation on the basis of a settlement agreement.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James A. Worth, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3065. 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 the original
investigation on March 31, 2008, based upon a complaint filed on behalf
of General Electric of Fairfield, Connecticut (``GE'') on February 7,
2008. 73 FR 16910. 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 variable speed wind turbines and
components thereof that infringe claims 121-125 of U.S. Patent No.
5,083,039 (``the `039 patent'') and claims 1-12, 15-18, and 21-28 of
U.S. Patent No. 6,921,985 (``the `985 patent''). The complaint named as
respondents Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan and
Mitsubishi Power Systems, Inc. of Lake Mary, Florida (collectively,
``Mitsubishi''), and a third entity which was subsequently found not to
import. On October 8, 2008, the Commission issued notice of its
determination not to review an initial determination (``ID'') (Order
No. 10) granting GE's motion to amend its complaint and the notice of
investigation to add claims 1-19 of United States Patent No. 7,321,221
(``the `221 patent'') to the investigation.
On August 7, 2009, the ALJ issued his final ID finding a violation
of section 337. The ALJ found a violation of section 337 with respect
to the `039 patent and the `985 patent but not the `221 patent.
On January 8, 2010, the Commission issued notice of its final
determination of no violation of section 337 as to all of these
patents. With respect to the `985 patent, the Commission found that GE
failed to satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry
requirement.
GE filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit. On motion by the Commission, the Court dismissed the appeal as
to the `039 patent and thereby vacated as moot the Commission
determination as to that patent. Subsequently, the Court affirmed the
Commission's determination as to the `221 patent, and reversed the
Commission's determination that GE had not satisfied the domestic
industry requirement as to the `985 patent. The opinion originally
issued by the Court contained a further Part III, which commented on
the Commission's authority to take no position on an issue pursuant to
Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Subsequently, the panel granted a petition for rehearing, withdrawing
Part III of its Opinion. General Electric Co. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n,
Order, 692 F.3d 1218 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
The Federal Circuit issued its mandate on August 27, 2012.
Subsequently, the Commission received numerous unsolicited submissions
from the parties concerning the merits of the remand. The Commission
also received a motion for sanctions by Mitsubishi against GE, a
response thereto by GE, and motions for leave to file a reply and
surreply.
On January 2, 2014, GE and Mitsubishi filed a joint motion to
terminate the investigation on the basis of a settlement agreement
pursuant to Commission rule 210.21(b), 19 CFR 210.21(b). The parties
stated that termination is in the interest of the public and
administrative economy. On January 27, 2014, the Office of Unfair
Import Investigations (``OUII'') filed a response in opposition,
stating that the public version of the settlement agreement was overly
redacted. On
[[Page 22835]]
February 7, 2014, the parties re-submitted the public version of the
settlement agreement. On the same day, OUII wrote a letter to the
Secretary to the Commission, withdrawing its opposition.
After considering the joint motion, and the settlement agreement,
the Commission agrees that the joint motion to terminate is in the
interest of the public, and complies with the requirements of
Commission rule 210.21(b). The Commission has therefore determined to
grant the motion to terminate the investigation on the basis of a
settlement agreement and to dismiss the motion for sanctions. The
Commission has further determined to dismiss as moot the private
parties' motions for leave to file a reply and to file a surreply and
to not accept for filing any submissions not previously accepted given
that the case has been mooted by settlement. The investigation is
hereby terminated.
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 Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
Part 210).
Issued: April 18, 2014.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2014-09298 Filed 4-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
