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