Certain Compact Fluorescent Reflector Lamps, Products Containing Same and Components Thereof; Notice of the Commission's Final Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; Termination of the Investigation, 32996-32997 [2014-13340]

Download as PDF ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 32996 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 110 / Monday, June 9, 2014 / Notices System (EDIS) at EDIS,1 and 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 United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at USITC.2 The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at EDIS.3 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 has received an amended complaint and a submission pursuant to section 210.8(b) and 210.14(a) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. on May 27, 2014. The complaint alleges 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 integrated circuits and products containing the same. The complaint name as respondents MediaTek, Inc. of Taiwan; MediaTek USA Inc. of San Jose, CA; Acer Inc. of Taiwan; AmTRAN Technology Co. Ltd. of Taiwan; AmTRAN Logistics, Inc. of Irvine, CA; ASUSTek Computer Inc. of Taiwan; ASUS Computer International, Inc. of Fremont, CA; BLU Products, Inc. of Doral, FL; Sharp Corporation of Japan; Sharp Electronics Corporation of Mahwah, NJ; Sharp Electronics Manufacturing Company of America Inc. of San Diego, CA; Sony Corporation of Japan, Sony Corporation of America of New York, NY, Sony Electronics Inc. of San Diego, CA, and Sony EMCS (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd of Malaysia; Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. of Irvine, CA; Toshiba Logistics America, Inc. of Irvine, CA; TPV Display Technology (Xiamen) Co., Ltd. of China; Trend Smart America, Ltd. of Lake ´ Forest, CA; Trend Smart Ce Mexico, S.r.l de C.V. of Mexico, Vizio, Inc. of Irvine, CA; Yamaha Corporation of Japan; Yamaha Corporation of America of Buena Park, CA; Lenovo Group Ltd. 1 Electronic Document Information System (EDIS): https://edis.usitc.gov. 2 United States International Trade Commission (USITC): https://edis.usitc.gov. 3 Electronic Document Information System (EDIS): https://edis.usitc.gov. VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:08 Jun 06, 2014 Jkt 232001 of China, Lenovo (United States) Inc. of Morrisville, NC; Best Buy Co., Inc. of Richfield, MN; Newegg Inc. of City Of Industry, CA; Buy.com Inc. d/b/a Rakuten.com Shopping of Aliso Viejo, CA; Walmart Stores, Inc. of Bentonville, AK; Amazon.com, Inc. of Seattle, WA; B & H Foto & Electronics Corp. of New York, NY and Costco Wholesale Corporation of Issaquah, WA. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a general exclusion order, or in the alternative, a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders. Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or section 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the amended complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers. In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that: (i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States; (ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders; (iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded; (iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant’s licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and (v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers. Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. There will be further opportunities for comment on the public interest after the issuance of any final initial determination in this investigation. PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (‘‘Docket No. 3014’’) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, Electronic Filing Procedures 4). Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202–205–2000). Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to 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 by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.5 This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)). By order of the Commission. Issued: June 3, 2014. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2014–13247 Filed 6–6–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–872] Certain Compact Fluorescent Reflector Lamps, Products Containing Same and Components Thereof; Notice of the Commission’s Final Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; 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 no violation of SUMMARY: 4 Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures: https://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/ rules/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf. 5 Electronic Document Information System (EDIS): https://edis.usitc.gov. E:\FR\FM\09JNN1.SGM 09JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 110 / Monday, June 9, 2014 / Notices section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337, in this investigation. The investigation is terminated. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Needham, Office of the General 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. The Commission instituted this investigation on March 5, 2013, based on a complaint filed by Neptun Light, Inc., and Mr. Andrzej Bobel (together, ‘‘Neptun’’) to consider alleged violations of section 337 by reason of infringement of claims 1, 2, 10, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 7,053,540 (‘‘the ’540 patent’’). 78 Fed. Reg. 14357–58. The Commission’s notice of investigation named as respondents Maxlite, Inc. (‘‘Maxlight’’); Satco Products, Inc. (‘‘Satco’’); Litetronics International, Inc. (‘‘Litetronics’’) (together, ‘‘Respondents’’); and Technical Consumer Products, Inc. (‘‘TCP’’). Id. at 14358. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations did not participate in this investigation. Id. On June 10, 2013, Neptun and TCP moved to terminate the investigation with respect to TCP on the basis of a settlement agreement. The motion was granted on June 11, 2013. Order No. 20, not reviewed (July 8, 2013). On February 3, 2014, the ALJ issued his final initial determination (‘‘ID’’), finding a violation of section 337. Specifically, the ALJ found that Maxlite and Satco violated section 337 with respect to claims 1, 2 and 11 of the ’540 patent, and that Litetronics violated section 337 with respect to claims 1, 2 and 10 of the ’540 patent. The ALJ recommended that a limited exclusion order issue against the infringing products of Maxlite, Satco, and ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:08 Jun 06, 2014 Jkt 232001 Litetronics. He did not recommend the issuance of any cease and desist orders. On February 18, 2014, Respondents petitioned for review of several of the ALJ’s findings. Also on February 18, 2014, Neptun contingently petitioned for review of the ALJ’s finding that Neptun had not made a sufficient showing on the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement through 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C). On February 26, 2014, Neptun and Respondents opposed each other’s petitions. On April 8, 2014, the Commission determined to review the ALJ’s findings on the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement, the claim construction of ‘‘mating opening,’’ and infringement. The Commission also sought briefing from the parties on seven issues, and received opening submissions on April 22, 2014, and responsive submissions on April 29, 2014. Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ALJ’s final ID and the submissions from the parties, the Commission has determined that Neptun has not proven a violation of section 337. Specifically, the Commission has determined to reject the ALJ’s construction of ‘‘mating opening,’’ and to reverse the ALJ’s findings of infringement. The Commission takes no position on whether Neptun satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984). All other findings in the ID that are consistent with the Commission’s determinations are affirmed. A Commission Opinion will issue shortly. 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). DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE By order of the Commission. Dated: June 3, 2014. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 32997 [FR Doc. 2014–13340 Filed 6–6–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 [OMB Number 1140–0070] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Application for Explosives License or Permit Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice. ACTION: 30-day notice. AGENCY: 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. This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register Volume 79, Number 64, page 18698 on April 3, 2014, allowing for a 60 day comment period. DATES: The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until July 9, 2014. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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 Christopher R. Reeves, Federal Explosives Licensing Center, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, 244 Needy Road, Martinsburg, WV 25405, Telephone 1– 877–283–3352. Written comments and/ or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or email to OIRA_submission@ omb.eop.gov. SUMMARY: This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. 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; E:\FR\FM\09JNN1.SGM 09JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 110 (Monday, June 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32996-32997]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13340]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-872]


Certain Compact Fluorescent Reflector Lamps, Products Containing 
Same and Components Thereof; Notice of the Commission's Final 
Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; 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 no violation of

[[Page 32997]]

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. Sec.  
1337, in this investigation. The investigation is terminated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Needham, Office of the General 
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 March 5, 2013, based on a complaint filed by Neptun Light, Inc., and 
Mr. Andrzej Bobel (together, ``Neptun'') to consider alleged violations 
of section 337 by reason of infringement of claims 1, 2, 10, and 11 of 
U.S. Patent No. 7,053,540 (``the '540 patent''). 78 Fed. Reg. 14357-58. 
The Commission's notice of investigation named as respondents Maxlite, 
Inc. (``Maxlight''); Satco Products, Inc. (``Satco''); Litetronics 
International, Inc. (``Litetronics'') (together, ``Respondents''); and 
Technical Consumer Products, Inc. (``TCP''). Id. at 14358. The Office 
of Unfair Import Investigations did not participate in this 
investigation. Id.
    On June 10, 2013, Neptun and TCP moved to terminate the 
investigation with respect to TCP on the basis of a settlement 
agreement. The motion was granted on June 11, 2013. Order No. 20, not 
reviewed (July 8, 2013).
    On February 3, 2014, the ALJ issued his final initial determination 
(``ID''), finding a violation of section 337. Specifically, the ALJ 
found that Maxlite and Satco violated section 337 with respect to 
claims 1, 2 and 11 of the '540 patent, and that Litetronics violated 
section 337 with respect to claims 1, 2 and 10 of the '540 patent. The 
ALJ recommended that a limited exclusion order issue against the 
infringing products of Maxlite, Satco, and Litetronics. He did not 
recommend the issuance of any cease and desist orders.
    On February 18, 2014, Respondents petitioned for review of several 
of the ALJ's findings. Also on February 18, 2014, Neptun contingently 
petitioned for review of the ALJ's finding that Neptun had not made a 
sufficient showing on the economic prong of the domestic industry 
requirement through 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C). On February 26, 2014, 
Neptun and Respondents opposed each other's petitions.
    On April 8, 2014, the Commission determined to review the ALJ's 
findings on the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement, 
the claim construction of ``mating opening,'' and infringement. The 
Commission also sought briefing from the parties on seven issues, and 
received opening submissions on April 22, 2014, and responsive 
submissions on April 29, 2014.
    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the 
ALJ's final ID and the submissions from the parties, the Commission has 
determined that Neptun has not proven a violation of section 337. 
Specifically, the Commission has determined to reject the ALJ's 
construction of ``mating opening,'' and to reverse the ALJ's findings 
of infringement. The Commission takes no position on whether Neptun 
satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. See 
Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984). All 
other findings in the ID that are consistent with the Commission's 
determinations are affirmed. A Commission Opinion will issue shortly.
    The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in 
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. Sec.  
1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure (19 CFR Part 210).

    By order of the Commission.

    Dated: June 3, 2014.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2014-13340 Filed 6-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.