Certain Beverage Brewing Capsules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same; Commission's Final Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337 by Solofill LLC or DongGuan Hai Rui Precision Mould Co., Ltd.; Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Orders to Defaulted Respondents; Termination of the Investigation, 15742-15743 [2016-06654]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
15742
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 57 / Thursday, March 24, 2016 / Notices
River basin. Improvements in the
efficiency of water delivery and use will
result in improved streamflows for fish
and wildlife and improve the reliability
of water supplies for irrigation.
This notice is published in
accordance with Section 9(a)(2) of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act of
1972 (Pub. L. 92–463, as amended). The
certification of renewal is published
below.
Certification
I hereby certify that Charter renewal
of the Yakima River Basin Conservation
Advisory Group is in the public interest
in connection with the performance of
duties imposed on the Department of
the Interior.
Sally Jewell,
Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 2016–06646 Filed 3–23–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4330–90–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–929]
Certain Beverage Brewing Capsules,
Components Thereof, and Products
Containing the Same; Commission’s
Final Determination Finding No
Violation of Section 337 by Solofill LLC
or DongGuan Hai Rui Precision Mould
Co., Ltd.; Issuance of a Limited
Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist
Orders to Defaulted Respondents;
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
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (‘‘section
337’’) by Solofill LLC and DongGuan
Hai Rui Precision Mould Co., Ltd., and
has issued a limited exclusion order and
cease desist orders to the defaulted
respondents Eko Brands, LLC,
Evermuch Technology Co., Ltd., and
Ever Much Company, Ltd. 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.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:44 Mar 23, 2016
Jkt 238001
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 September 9, 2014, based on a
complaint filed by Adrian Rivera of
Whittier, California, and Adrian Rivera
Maynez Enterprises, Inc., of Santa Fe
Springs, California (together, ‘‘ARM’’).
79 FR 53445–46. The complaint alleges
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 beverage
brewing capsules, components thereof,
and products containing the same that
infringe claims 5–8 and 18–20 of U.S.
Patent No. 8,720,320 (‘‘the ’320 patent’’).
Id. at 53445. The Commission’s notice
of investigation named as respondents
Solofill LLC of Houston, Texas
(‘‘Solofill’’); DongGuan Hai Rui
Precision Mould Co., Ltd. of Dong Guan
City, China (‘‘DongGuan’’); Eko Brands,
LLC (‘‘Eko Brands’’), of Woodinville,
Washington; Evermuch Technology Co.,
Ltd. (‘‘Evermuch Technology’’), of Hong
Kong, China; Ever Much Company Ltd.
(‘‘Evermuch Company’’) of Shenzhen,
China; Melitta USA, Inc. (‘‘Melitta’’), of
North Clearwater, Florida; LBP Mfg.,
Inc. of Cicero, Illinois and LBP
Packaging (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. of
Shenzhen, China (together, ‘‘LBP’’);
Spark Innovators Corp. (‘‘Spark’’), of
Fairfield, New Jersey; B. Marlboros
International Ltd. (HK) (‘‘B. Marlboros’’)
of Hong Kong, China; and Amazon.com,
Inc. (‘‘Amazon’’) of Seattle, Washington.
The Office of Unfair Import
Investigations was also named as a party
to the investigation. Id.
The Commission terminated the
investigation with respect to Melitta,
Spark, LBP, and B. Marlboros based on
the entry of consent orders and
terminated the investigation with
respect to Amazon based on a
settlement agreement. Notice (Dec. 18,
2014); Notice (Jan. 13, 2015); Notice
(Mar. 27, 2015); Notice (Apr. 10, 2015).
The Commission also found Eko Brands,
Evermuch Technology, and Evermuch
Company in default for failing to
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
respond to the complaint and notice of
investigation. Notice (May 18, 2015).
Accordingly, Solofill and DongGuan
(together, ‘‘Respondents’’) are the only
respondents actively participating in the
investigation.
On September 4, 2015, the ALJ issued
his final initial determination (‘‘ID’’)
finding no violation of section 337. The
ID found that ARM had established
every element for finding a violation of
section 337 except for infringement. The
ID found that Respondents were not
liable for direct infringement because
direct infringement required the
combination of Respondents’ products
with a third-party single serve beverage
brewer, and that Respondents were not
liable for induced or contributory
infringement because they did not have
pre-suit knowledge of the ’320 patent.
The ID did find that Respondents’
products directly infringed claims 5–7,
18, and 20 of the ’320 patent (‘‘the
asserted claims’’) when combined with
a third-party single serve coffee brewer,
that the asserted claims were not shown
invalid by clear and convincing
evidence, and that ARM satisfied both
the technical and economic prongs of
the domestic industry requirement. The
ALJ also issued his recommendation on
remedy and bonding along with his ID.
On September 21, 2015, ARM
petitioned for review of the ID’s findings
that Respondents were not liable for
induced and contributory infringement
because of a lack of pre-suit knowledge,
and Respondents petitioned for review
of several of the ID’s findings. On
September 29, 2015, the parties opposed
each other’s petitions, and the
Commission Investigative Attorney
(‘‘IA’’) opposed both petitions.
On November 9, 2015, the
Commission determined to review the
final ID in part. Specifically the
Commission determined to review the
following: (1) The ID’s findings on the
construction, infringement, and
technical prong of the domestic industry
requirement for the limitation ‘‘a
needle-like structure, disposed below
the base’’; (2) the ID’s findings on
induced and contributory infringement;
(3) the ID’s findings that the asserted
claims are not invalid for a lack of
written description, as anticipated by
Beaulieu and the APA, or as obvious;
and (4) the ID’s findings on the
economic prong of the domestic
industry requirement. The Commission
determined not to review the remaining
findings in the ID. The Commission also
requested briefing from the parties on
the issue of pre-suit knowledge, and
briefing from the parties and the public
on the issues of remedy, the public
interest, and bonding. The Commission
E:\FR\FM\24MRN1.SGM
24MRN1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 57 / Thursday, March 24, 2016 / Notices
received initial written submissions
from ARM, Respondents, and the IA on
November 20, 2015, and responsive
written submissions from ARM,
Respondents, and the IA on December 1,
2015. No submissions were received
from the public.
Having examined the record of this
investigation, including the ALJ’s final
ID, the petitions, responses, and other
submissions from the parties, the
Commission has determined that ARM
has not proven a violation of section 337
by Solofill and DongGuan. Specifically,
the Commission has determined to
modify the ID’s construction of ‘‘a
needle-like structure, disposed below
the base,’’ and, under the modified
construction, affirms under modified
reasoning the ID’s findings on
infringement and the technical prong of
the domestic industry requirement. The
Commission has also determined to
reverse the ID’s finding that
Respondents are not liable for
contributory and induced infringement.
The Commission has further determined
that that claims 5 and 6 of the ’320
patent are invalid as anticipated by
Beaulieu and that claims 5–7, 18, and 20
of the ’320 patent are invalid for a lack
of written description (Commissioner
Kieff dissenting on written description).
Additionally, the Commission has
determined that Respondents have not
shown that claims 7, 18, and 20 are
invalid as anticipated or that claims 5–
7, 18, and 20 are invalid as obvious.
Finally, the Commission has determined
to affirm the ID’s findings on the
economic prong. All other findings in
the ID that are consistent with the
Commission’s determinations are
affirmed.
The Commission also previously
found the statutory requirements of
section 337(g)(1) (19 U.S.C. § 1337(g)(1))
and Commission Rule 210.16(a)(1) (19
CFR 210.16(a)(1)) met with respect to
Eko Brands, Evermuch Technology, and
Evermuch Company, and found these
respondents in default. See ALJ Order
No. 19, unreviewed Notice (May 18,
2015).
The Commission has determined that
the appropriate form of relief in this
investigation is: (1) A limited exclusion
order prohibiting the unlicensed entry
of beverage brewing capsules,
components thereof, and products
containing same that are manufactured
abroad by or on behalf of, or imported
by or on behalf of, Eko Brands,
Evermuch Technology, or Evermuch
Company, that infringe one or more of
claims 8 and 19 of the ’320 patent; (2)
cease and desist orders prohibiting Eko
Brands, Evermuch Technology, and
Evermuch Company from importing,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:44 Mar 23, 2016
Jkt 238001
selling, marketing, advertising,
distributing, transferring (except for
exportation), soliciting United States
agents or distributors, and aiding or
abetting other entities in the
importation, sale for importation, sale
after importation, transfer (except for
exportation), or distribution of beverage
brewing capsules, components thereof,
and products containing same that
infringe one or more of claims 8 and 19
of the ’320 patent. The Commission has
further determined that the public
interest factors enumerated in section
337(g)(1) (19 U.S.C. § 1337(g)(1)) do not
preclude the issuance of the remedial
orders. Finally, the Commission has
determined that the bond during the
period of Presidential review shall be in
the amount of 100 percent of the entered
value of the imported subject articles of
Eko Brands, Evermuch Technology, and
Evermuch Company. The Commission’s
orders were delivered to the President
and the United States Trade
Representative on the day of their
issuance. A Commission Opinion
concerning the Commission’s finding of
no violation by Solofill or DongGuan
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).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: March 17, 2016.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2016–06654 Filed 3–23–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
Notice of Receipt of Complaint;
Solicitation of Comments Relating to
the Public Interest
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has received a complaint
entitled Certain Height-Adjustable Desk
Platforms and Components Thereof DN
3127; the Commission is soliciting
comments on any public interest issues
raised by the complaint or
complainant’s filing under section
210.8(b) of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.8(b)).
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
15743
Lisa
R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission,
U.S. International Trade Commission,
500 E Street SW., Washington, DC
20436, telephone (202) 205–2000. The
public version of the complaint can be
accessed on the Commission’s
Electronic Document Information
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 a complaint
and a submission pursuant to section
210.8(b) of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure filed on behalf
of Varidesk LLC on March 18, 2016. 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 height-adjustable
desk platforms and components thereof.
The complaint names as respondents
Nortek, Inc. of Providence, RI; and
Ergotron, Inc. of St. Paul, MN. The
complainant requests that the
Commission issue 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
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
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
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.
E:\FR\FM\24MRN1.SGM
24MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 57 (Thursday, March 24, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15742-15743]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06654]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-929]
Certain Beverage Brewing Capsules, Components Thereof, and
Products Containing the Same; Commission's Final Determination Finding
No Violation of Section 337 by Solofill LLC or DongGuan Hai Rui
Precision Mould Co., Ltd.; Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order and
Cease and Desist Orders to Defaulted Respondents; 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 section 337 of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1337 (``section 337'') by Solofill
LLC and DongGuan Hai Rui Precision Mould Co., Ltd., and has issued a
limited exclusion order and cease desist orders to the defaulted
respondents Eko Brands, LLC, Evermuch Technology Co., Ltd., and Ever
Much Company, Ltd. 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 September 9, 2014, based on a complaint filed by Adrian Rivera of
Whittier, California, and Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises, Inc., of
Santa Fe Springs, California (together, ``ARM''). 79 FR 53445-46. The
complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended, 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1337, in the importation into the United
States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States
after importation of certain beverage brewing capsules, components
thereof, and products containing the same that infringe claims 5-8 and
18-20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,720,320 (``the '320 patent''). Id. at 53445.
The Commission's notice of investigation named as respondents Solofill
LLC of Houston, Texas (``Solofill''); DongGuan Hai Rui Precision Mould
Co., Ltd. of Dong Guan City, China (``DongGuan''); Eko Brands, LLC
(``Eko Brands''), of Woodinville, Washington; Evermuch Technology Co.,
Ltd. (``Evermuch Technology''), of Hong Kong, China; Ever Much Company
Ltd. (``Evermuch Company'') of Shenzhen, China; Melitta USA, Inc.
(``Melitta''), of North Clearwater, Florida; LBP Mfg., Inc. of Cicero,
Illinois and LBP Packaging (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. of Shenzhen, China
(together, ``LBP''); Spark Innovators Corp. (``Spark''), of Fairfield,
New Jersey; B. Marlboros International Ltd. (HK) (``B. Marlboros'') of
Hong Kong, China; and Amazon.com, Inc. (``Amazon'') of Seattle,
Washington. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations was also named
as a party to the investigation. Id.
The Commission terminated the investigation with respect to
Melitta, Spark, LBP, and B. Marlboros based on the entry of consent
orders and terminated the investigation with respect to Amazon based on
a settlement agreement. Notice (Dec. 18, 2014); Notice (Jan. 13, 2015);
Notice (Mar. 27, 2015); Notice (Apr. 10, 2015). The Commission also
found Eko Brands, Evermuch Technology, and Evermuch Company in default
for failing to respond to the complaint and notice of investigation.
Notice (May 18, 2015). Accordingly, Solofill and DongGuan (together,
``Respondents'') are the only respondents actively participating in the
investigation.
On September 4, 2015, the ALJ issued his final initial
determination (``ID'') finding no violation of section 337. The ID
found that ARM had established every element for finding a violation of
section 337 except for infringement. The ID found that Respondents were
not liable for direct infringement because direct infringement required
the combination of Respondents' products with a third-party single
serve beverage brewer, and that Respondents were not liable for induced
or contributory infringement because they did not have pre-suit
knowledge of the '320 patent. The ID did find that Respondents'
products directly infringed claims 5-7, 18, and 20 of the '320 patent
(``the asserted claims'') when combined with a third-party single serve
coffee brewer, that the asserted claims were not shown invalid by clear
and convincing evidence, and that ARM satisfied both the technical and
economic prongs of the domestic industry requirement. The ALJ also
issued his recommendation on remedy and bonding along with his ID.
On September 21, 2015, ARM petitioned for review of the ID's
findings that Respondents were not liable for induced and contributory
infringement because of a lack of pre-suit knowledge, and Respondents
petitioned for review of several of the ID's findings. On September 29,
2015, the parties opposed each other's petitions, and the Commission
Investigative Attorney (``IA'') opposed both petitions.
On November 9, 2015, the Commission determined to review the final
ID in part. Specifically the Commission determined to review the
following: (1) The ID's findings on the construction, infringement, and
technical prong of the domestic industry requirement for the limitation
``a needle-like structure, disposed below the base''; (2) the ID's
findings on induced and contributory infringement; (3) the ID's
findings that the asserted claims are not invalid for a lack of written
description, as anticipated by Beaulieu and the APA, or as obvious; and
(4) the ID's findings on the economic prong of the domestic industry
requirement. The Commission determined not to review the remaining
findings in the ID. The Commission also requested briefing from the
parties on the issue of pre-suit knowledge, and briefing from the
parties and the public on the issues of remedy, the public interest,
and bonding. The Commission
[[Page 15743]]
received initial written submissions from ARM, Respondents, and the IA
on November 20, 2015, and responsive written submissions from ARM,
Respondents, and the IA on December 1, 2015. No submissions were
received from the public.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the
ALJ's final ID, the petitions, responses, and other submissions from
the parties, the Commission has determined that ARM has not proven a
violation of section 337 by Solofill and DongGuan. Specifically, the
Commission has determined to modify the ID's construction of ``a
needle-like structure, disposed below the base,'' and, under the
modified construction, affirms under modified reasoning the ID's
findings on infringement and the technical prong of the domestic
industry requirement. The Commission has also determined to reverse the
ID's finding that Respondents are not liable for contributory and
induced infringement. The Commission has further determined that that
claims 5 and 6 of the '320 patent are invalid as anticipated by
Beaulieu and that claims 5-7, 18, and 20 of the '320 patent are invalid
for a lack of written description (Commissioner Kieff dissenting on
written description). Additionally, the Commission has determined that
Respondents have not shown that claims 7, 18, and 20 are invalid as
anticipated or that claims 5-7, 18, and 20 are invalid as obvious.
Finally, the Commission has determined to affirm the ID's findings on
the economic prong. All other findings in the ID that are consistent
with the Commission's determinations are affirmed.
The Commission also previously found the statutory requirements of
section 337(g)(1) (19 U.S.C. Sec. 1337(g)(1)) and Commission Rule
210.16(a)(1) (19 CFR 210.16(a)(1)) met with respect to Eko Brands,
Evermuch Technology, and Evermuch Company, and found these respondents
in default. See ALJ Order No. 19, unreviewed Notice (May 18, 2015).
The Commission has determined that the appropriate form of relief
in this investigation is: (1) A limited exclusion order prohibiting the
unlicensed entry of beverage brewing capsules, components thereof, and
products containing same that are manufactured abroad by or on behalf
of, or imported by or on behalf of, Eko Brands, Evermuch Technology, or
Evermuch Company, that infringe one or more of claims 8 and 19 of the
'320 patent; (2) cease and desist orders prohibiting Eko Brands,
Evermuch Technology, and Evermuch Company from importing, selling,
marketing, advertising, distributing, transferring (except for
exportation), soliciting United States agents or distributors, and
aiding or abetting other entities in the importation, sale for
importation, sale after importation, transfer (except for exportation),
or distribution of beverage brewing capsules, components thereof, and
products containing same that infringe one or more of claims 8 and 19
of the '320 patent. The Commission has further determined that the
public interest factors enumerated in section 337(g)(1) (19 U.S.C.
Sec. 1337(g)(1)) do not preclude the issuance of the remedial orders.
Finally, the Commission has determined that the bond during the period
of Presidential review shall be in the amount of 100 percent of the
entered value of the imported subject articles of Eko Brands, Evermuch
Technology, and Evermuch Company. The Commission's orders were
delivered to the President and the United States Trade Representative
on the day of their issuance. A Commission Opinion concerning the
Commission's finding of no violation by Solofill or DongGuan 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.
Issued: March 17, 2016.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2016-06654 Filed 3-23-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
