Certain Beverage Brewing Capsules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same; Commission Determination Finding No Violation of the Remedial Orders; Determination Not To Rescind the Remedial Orders; Termination of the Consolidated Enforcement and Rescission Proceeding, 30901-30902 [2017-13909]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 126 / Monday, July 3, 2017 / Notices Subject Merchandise and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total exports to the United States of Subject Merchandise from the Subject Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. (12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the Domestic Like Product that have occurred in the United States or in the market for the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Country after 2011, and significant changes, if any, that are likely to occur within a reasonably foreseeable time. Supply conditions to consider include technology; production methods; development efforts; ability to increase production (including the shift of production facilities used for other products and the use, cost, or availability of major inputs into production); and factors related to the ability to shift supply among different national markets (including barriers to importation in foreign markets or changes in market demand abroad). Demand conditions to consider include end uses and applications; the existence and availability of substitute products; and the level of competition among the Domestic Like Product produced in the United States, Subject Merchandise produced in the Subject Country, and such merchandise from other countries. (13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the Domestic Like Product and Domestic Industry; if you disagree with either or both of these definitions, please explain why and provide alternative definitions. Authority: This proceeding is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission’s rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: June 26, 2017. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2017–13713 Filed 6–30–17; 8:45 am] sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES BILLING CODE 7020–02–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:53 Jun 30, 2017 Jkt 241001 INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–929 (Enforcement and Rescission Proceeding)] Certain Beverage Brewing Capsules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same; Commission Determination Finding No Violation of the Remedial Orders; Determination Not To Rescind the Remedial Orders; Termination of the Consolidated Enforcement and Rescission Proceeding U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined that enforcement complainants Adrian Rivera and Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises, Inc. (collectively, ‘‘ARM’’) have not shown that respondents Eko Brands, LLC, and Espresso Supply, Inc., violated a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order (together, ‘‘remedial orders’’). The Commission has also determined not to rescind the remedial orders. The consolidated enforcement and rescission proceeding is hereby terminated. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert J. Needham, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–3438. 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 September 9, 2014, based on a complaint filed by ARM. 79 FR 53445–46 (Sept. 9, 2014). 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 SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 30901 sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain beverage brewing capsules, components thereof, and products containing the same, by reason of infringement of claims 5–8 and 18–20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,720,320 (‘‘the ’320 patent’’). Id. The notice of institution of the investigation named as respondents Solofill, LLC (‘‘Solofill’’); DongGuan Hai Rui Precision Mould Co., Ltd. (‘‘DongGuan’’); Eko Brands, LLC (‘‘Eko’’); Evermuch Technology Co., Ltd. and Ever Much Company Ltd. (together, ‘‘Evermuch’’); and several additional respondents that were terminated by reason of consent order or settlement. 79 FR 53445. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (‘‘OUII’’) was also named as a party to the investigation. Id. The Commission found Eko and Evermuch in default for failure to respond to the complaint and notice of investigation. Notice (May 18, 2015). On March 17, 2016, the Commission found no violation of section 337 by Solofill and DongGuan because claims 5–7, 18, and 20 of the ’320 patent were invalid for a lack of written description and claims 5 and 6 were invalid as anticipated. 81 FR 15742–43 (Mar. 24, 2016). The Commission, however, presumed that the allegations in the complaint were true with respect to the defaulted parties Eko Brands and Evermuch, and thus concluded that they violated section 337 with respect to claims 8 and 19. Id. at 15743. The Commission issued a limited exclusion order prohibiting Eko Brands and Evermuch from importing certain beverage brewing capsules, components thereof, and products containing the same that infringed claims 8 or 19 of the ’320 patent. Id. The Commission also issued cease and desist orders against Eko Brands and Evermuch prohibiting the sale and distribution within the United States of articles that infringe claims 8 or 19. Id. On June 1, 2016, ARM filed a complaint requesting that the Commission institute a formal enforcement proceeding under Commission Rule 210.75(b) to investigate alleged violations of the March 17, 2016, remedial orders by Eko and its purchaser, Espresso Supply, Inc. (collectively, ‘‘Eko’’). The Commission instituted a formal enforcement proceeding on July 1, 2016. 81 FR 43242–43. On September 12, 2016, Eko file a second petition requesting the Commission to rescind its remedial orders, and to terminate the enforcement proceeding. On November 25, 2016, the Commission instituted a rescission proceeding, and consolidated E:\FR\FM\03JYN1.SGM 03JYN1 30902 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 126 / Monday, July 3, 2017 / Notices sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES it with the enforcement proceeding. 81 FR 85264–65. On January 31, 2017, Eko petitioned the Commission to rescind the remedial orders based on a lack of a domestic industry. The Commission denied the petition on June 8, 2017, because Eko failed to show changed circumstances with respect to the domestic industry. Notice of Commission Determination to Deny a Petition Requesting the Rescission of Remedial Orders (June 8, 2017). On March 27, 2017, the presiding ALJ issued the subject enforcement initial determination (‘‘EID’’), which found that the remedial orders cannot be enforced due to a lack of domestic industry, and issued a recommended determination that the remedial orders be rescinded due to an intervening district court summary judgment of noninfringement. OUII petitioned for review of the EID on April 6, 2017, and ARM petitioned for review on April 7, 2017. On April 13, 2017, ARM and Eko filed a response to OUII’s petition, and OUII filed a response to ARM’s petition. On April 14, 2017, Eko filed a response to ARM’s petition. On May 11, 2017, the Commission determined to review the EID. The Commission has determined that ARM has not shown that Eko violated the remedial orders. The Commission reverses the EID’s finding that the remedial orders cannot be enforced against Eko due to a lack of domestic industry, but finds that ARM has failed to show that Eko had the intent necessary to induce or contribute to the infringement of claims 8 and 19 of the ’320 patent. The Commission has also determined not to rescind the remedial orders. This consolidated enforcement and rescission proceeding is hereby terminated, and 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). By order of the Commission. Issued: June 27, 2017. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2017–13909 Filed 6–30–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:53 Jun 30, 2017 Jkt 241001 INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701–TA–442 and 731– TA–1095–1096 (Second Review)] Certain Lined Paper School Supplies From China and India; Institution of Five-Year Reviews United States International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’), as amended, to determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty order on certain lined paper school supplies from India and the antidumping duty orders on certain lined paper school supplies from China and India would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission. DATES: Effective July 3, 2017. To be assured of consideration, the deadline for responses is August 2, 2017. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by September 14, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 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 proceeding may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background.—On September 28, 2006, the Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) issued a countervailing duty order on certain lined paper school supplies from India and antidumping duty orders on certain lined paper school supplies from China and India (71 FR 56949). On April 14, 2011, Commerce amended in part the antidumping duty order on subject imports from India (76 FR 20954). Following the first five-year reviews by Commerce and the Commission, SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 effective August 31, 2012, Commerce issued a continuation of the countervailing duty order on imports of certain lined paper school supplies from India and the antidumping duty orders on imports of certain lined paper school supplies from China and India (77 FR 53172). The Commission is now conducting second five-year reviews pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), to determine whether revocation of the orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. Provisions concerning the conduct of this proceeding may be found in the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure at 19 CFR parts 201, subparts A and B and 19 CFR part 207, subparts A and F. The Commission will assess the adequacy of interested party responses to this notice of institution to determine whether to conduct full or expedited reviews. The Commission’s determinations in any expedited reviews will be based on the facts available, which may include information provided in response to this notice. Definitions.—The following definitions apply to these reviews: (1) Subject Merchandise is the class or kind of merchandise that is within the scope of the five-year reviews, as defined by Commerce. (2) The Subject Countries in these reviews are China and India. (3) The Domestic Like Product is the domestically produced product or products which are like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the Subject Merchandise. In its original determinations and its full first five-year reviews, the Commission found one Domestic Like Product consisting of all lined paper products, regardless of dimension. (4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. producers as a whole of the Domestic Like Product, or those producers whose collective output of the Domestic Like Product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product. In its original determinations and full first five-year reviews, the Commission found one Domestic Industry consisting of all domestic producers of lined paper products. The Commission also found during the original investigations that circumstances were appropriate to exclude two domestic producers, American Scholar and CPP, from the Domestic Industry under the related parties provision. In the full first fiveyear reviews, the Commission found E:\FR\FM\03JYN1.SGM 03JYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 126 (Monday, July 3, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30901-30902]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13909]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-929 (Enforcement and Rescission Proceeding)]


Certain Beverage Brewing Capsules, Components Thereof, and 
Products Containing the Same; Commission Determination Finding No 
Violation of the Remedial Orders; Determination Not To Rescind the 
Remedial Orders; Termination of the Consolidated Enforcement and 
Rescission Proceeding

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined that enforcement complainants Adrian Rivera 
and Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises, Inc. (collectively, ``ARM'') have 
not shown that respondents Eko Brands, LLC, and Espresso Supply, Inc., 
violated a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order 
(together, ``remedial orders''). The Commission has also determined not 
to rescind the remedial orders. The consolidated enforcement and 
rescission proceeding is hereby terminated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert J. Needham, Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3438. 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 September 9, 2014, based on a complaint filed by ARM. 
79 FR 53445-46 (Sept. 9, 2014). 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 beverage 
brewing capsules, components thereof, and products containing the same, 
by reason of infringement of claims 5-8 and 18-20 of U.S. Patent No. 
8,720,320 (``the '320 patent''). Id. The notice of institution of the 
investigation named as respondents Solofill, LLC (``Solofill''); 
DongGuan Hai Rui Precision Mould Co., Ltd. (``DongGuan''); Eko Brands, 
LLC (``Eko''); Evermuch Technology Co., Ltd. and Ever Much Company Ltd. 
(together, ``Evermuch''); and several additional respondents that were 
terminated by reason of consent order or settlement. 79 FR 53445. The 
Office of Unfair Import Investigations (``OUII'') was also named as a 
party to the investigation. Id. The Commission found Eko and Evermuch 
in default for failure to respond to the complaint and notice of 
investigation. Notice (May 18, 2015).
    On March 17, 2016, the Commission found no violation of section 337 
by Solofill and DongGuan because claims 5-7, 18, and 20 of the '320 
patent were invalid for a lack of written description and claims 5 and 
6 were invalid as anticipated. 81 FR 15742-43 (Mar. 24, 2016). The 
Commission, however, presumed that the allegations in the complaint 
were true with respect to the defaulted parties Eko Brands and 
Evermuch, and thus concluded that they violated section 337 with 
respect to claims 8 and 19. Id. at 15743. The Commission issued a 
limited exclusion order prohibiting Eko Brands and Evermuch from 
importing certain beverage brewing capsules, components thereof, and 
products containing the same that infringed claims 8 or 19 of the '320 
patent. Id. The Commission also issued cease and desist orders against 
Eko Brands and Evermuch prohibiting the sale and distribution within 
the United States of articles that infringe claims 8 or 19. Id.
    On June 1, 2016, ARM filed a complaint requesting that the 
Commission institute a formal enforcement proceeding under Commission 
Rule 210.75(b) to investigate alleged violations of the March 17, 2016, 
remedial orders by Eko and its purchaser, Espresso Supply, Inc. 
(collectively, ``Eko''). The Commission instituted a formal enforcement 
proceeding on July 1, 2016. 81 FR 43242-43.
    On September 12, 2016, Eko file a second petition requesting the 
Commission to rescind its remedial orders, and to terminate the 
enforcement proceeding. On November 25, 2016, the Commission instituted 
a rescission proceeding, and consolidated

[[Page 30902]]

it with the enforcement proceeding. 81 FR 85264-65.
    On January 31, 2017, Eko petitioned the Commission to rescind the 
remedial orders based on a lack of a domestic industry. The Commission 
denied the petition on June 8, 2017, because Eko failed to show changed 
circumstances with respect to the domestic industry. Notice of 
Commission Determination to Deny a Petition Requesting the Rescission 
of Remedial Orders (June 8, 2017).
    On March 27, 2017, the presiding ALJ issued the subject enforcement 
initial determination (``EID''), which found that the remedial orders 
cannot be enforced due to a lack of domestic industry, and issued a 
recommended determination that the remedial orders be rescinded due to 
an intervening district court summary judgment of noninfringement. OUII 
petitioned for review of the EID on April 6, 2017, and ARM petitioned 
for review on April 7, 2017. On April 13, 2017, ARM and Eko filed a 
response to OUII's petition, and OUII filed a response to ARM's 
petition. On April 14, 2017, Eko filed a response to ARM's petition. On 
May 11, 2017, the Commission determined to review the EID.
    The Commission has determined that ARM has not shown that Eko 
violated the remedial orders. The Commission reverses the EID's finding 
that the remedial orders cannot be enforced against Eko due to a lack 
of domestic industry, but finds that ARM has failed to show that Eko 
had the intent necessary to induce or contribute to the infringement of 
claims 8 and 19 of the '320 patent. The Commission has also determined 
not to rescind the remedial orders. This consolidated enforcement and 
rescission proceeding is hereby terminated, and 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).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: June 27, 2017.
 Lisa R. Barton,
 Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2017-13909 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.