Certain Resealable Packages With Slider Devices; Commission Decision To Review-in-Part an Initial Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; On Review, To Modify-in-Part the Initial Determination and To Take No Position on One Issue; Affirmance of the Finding of No Violation and Termination of the Investigation, 58530-58531 [2016-20357]

Agencies

• INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 165 (Thursday, August 25, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58530-58531]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20357]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-962]


Certain Resealable Packages With Slider Devices; Commission 
Decision To Review-in-Part an Initial Determination Finding No 
Violation of Section 337; On Review, To Modify-in-Part the Initial 
Determination and To Take No Position on One Issue; Affirmance of the 
Finding of No Violation and 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 determined to review-in-part a final initial 
determination (``ID'') of the presiding administrative law judge 
(``ALJ'') finding no violation of section 337. On review, the 
Commission has determined to modify-in-part the ID and to take no 
position with respect to one issue. The Commission has also determined 
to affirm the ID's finding of no violation of section 337 and has 
terminated the investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2310. 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 at 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 July 20, 2015, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Reynolds 
Presto Products Inc. of Appleton, Wisconsin. 80 FR 42839-40. The 
complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 
as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, based upon the importation in the United 
States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States 
after importation of certain resealable packages with slider devices by 
reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Reexamination 
Certificate No. 6,427,421 and U.S. Patent Nos. 6,524,002 and 7,311,443. 
The complaint further alleges the existence of a domestic industry. The 
Commission's notice of investigation named Inteplast Group, Ltd. of 
Livingston, New Jersey and Minigrip, LLC of Alpharetta, Georgia as 
respondents. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations is 
participating in this investigation.
    On March 14, 2016, the Commission issued notice of its 
determination not to review the ALJ's ID (Order No. 8) granting 
complainant's motion for summary determination that it has satisfied 
the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement under 19 U.S.C. 
1337(a)(3)(A) and (B) for all asserted patents.
    On June 20, 2016, the ALJ issued his final ID finding no violation 
of section 337. The ALJ found that none of respondents' accused 
products infringe any of the asserted patents. He also found that the 
technical prong of the domestic industry requirement had been satisfied 
with respect to the '443 patent, but not with respect to the '421 or 
'002 patents. The ALJ also issued his recommended determination (RD) on 
remedy and bond. The ALJ recommended, in the event the Commission finds 
a violation, that both limited exclusion and cease and desist orders 
should issue against infringing products and each respondent.
    On July 6, 2016, complainant and respondents each filed a petition 
for review of the final ID. On July 14, 2016, complainant, OUII, and 
respondents each filed a response to the opposing petition.
    Having examined the record of this investigation including the ID, 
the parties' petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the 
Commission has determined to review-in-part the final ID. Specifically, 
the Commission has determined to review (1) the ID's finding of no 
invalidity of claim 1 of the '443 patent under 35 U.S.C. 102(b); and 
(2) the ID's analysis regarding infringement of the '421 patent. The 
Commission has determined not to review the remainder of the final ID.
    On review with respect to issue (1), the Commission determines to 
take no position on the ID's finding of no invalidity of claim 1 of the 
'443 patent under Sec.  102(b). On review with respect to issue (2), 
the Commission modifies-in-part the final ID. Specifically, the 
Commission supplements the ID's finding of no infringement under the 
doctrine of equivalents of asserted claim 39 of the '421 patent with 
respect to the ``feeding a zipper sheet'' limitation (ID at 45-49) with 
the following:

    Presto's doctrine of equivalents arguments are so broad that 
they read the limitation ``releasably adhered'' out of asserted 
claim 39. ``Under the all elements rule, there can be no 
infringement under the doctrine of equivalents if even one 
limitation of a claim or its equivalent is not present in the 
accused device. . . . Thus, if a court determines that a finding of 
infringement under the doctrine of equivalents `would entirely 
vitiate a particular claim[ed] element,' [as the case is here with 
respect to the ``releasably adhered'' limitation] then the court 
should rule that there is no infringement under the doctrine of 
equivalents.'' Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Space Systems/Loral, Inc., 
324 F.3d 1308, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citations omitted).

    The Commission therefore affirms the ID's finding of no violation 
of section 337 and terminates 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 part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 
part 210.

    By order of the Commission.


[[Page 58531]]


    Issued: August 19, 2016.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2016-20357 Filed 8-24-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P