Certain Magnetic Data Storage Tapes and Cartridges Containing the Same (II); Notice of a Commission Determination To Review in Part a Final Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; and Schedule for Filing Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, Public Interest, and Bonding, 10532-10534 [2019-05353]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
10532
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 55 / Thursday, March 21, 2019 / Notices
3920.30.00; 3920.43.50; 3920.49.00;
3920.62.00; 3920.69.00; 3921.90.11;
3921.90.15; 3921.90.19; 3921.90.40;
3926.90.99; 4601.99.90; 4602.90.00;
5404.90.00; 5609.00.30; 5609.00.40;
6307.90.98; and 9505.90.40 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States, that have been found by
the U.S. Department of Commerce
(‘‘Commerce’’) to be sold in the United
States at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’),
and to be subsidized by the government
of China.
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with NOTICES
Background
The Commission, pursuant to sections
705(b) and 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C.
1671d(b) and 19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)),
instituted these investigations effective
December 27, 2017, following receipt of
petitions filed with the Commission and
Commerce by Berwick Offray LLC,
Berwick, Pennsylvania. The final phase
of the investigations was scheduled by
the Commission following notification
of preliminary determinations by
Commerce that imports of plastic
decorative ribbon from China were
subsidized within the meaning of
section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C.
1671b(b)) and sold at LTFV within the
meaning of 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C.
1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of
the final phase of the Commission’s
investigations and of a public hearing to
be held in connection therewith was
given by posting copies of the notice in
the Office of the Secretary, U.S.
International Trade Commission,
Washington, DC, and by publishing the
notice in the Federal Register on August
30, 2018 (83 FR 44302). The hearing was
held in Washington, DC, on December
13, 2018, and all persons who requested
the opportunity were permitted to
appear in person or by counsel. Due to
the lapse in appropriations and ensuing
cessation of Commission operations, all
import injury investigations conducted
under authority of Title VII of the Tariff
Act of 1930 accordingly have been
tolled pursuant to 19 U.S.C 1671d(b)(2),
1673d(b)(2). A revised schedule was
published on February 8, 2019 (84 FR
2926).
The Commission made these
determinations pursuant to sections
705(b) and 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C.
1671d(b) and 19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)). It
completed and filed its determinations
in these investigations on March 15,
2019. The views of the Commission are
contained in USITC Publication 4875
(March 2019), entitled Plastic
Decorative Ribbon from China:
Investigation Nos. 701–TA–592 and
731–TA–1400 (Final).
By order of the Commission.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Mar 20, 2019
Jkt 247001
Issued: March 15, 2019.
Katherine Hiner,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2019–05344 Filed 3–20–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–1076]
Certain Magnetic Data Storage Tapes
and Cartridges Containing the Same
(II); Notice of a Commission
Determination To Review in Part a
Final Initial Determination Finding a
Violation of Section 337; and Schedule
for Filing Written Submissions on the
Issues Under Review and on Remedy,
Public Interest, and Bonding
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission (the ‘‘Commission’’) has
determined to review in part the final
initial determination (‘‘ID’’) of the
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’), which
was issued on October 25, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl
P. Bretscher, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202–
205–2382. 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 Information System
(‘‘EDIS’’) (https://edis.usitc.gov).
Hearing-impaired persons are advised
that information on this matter can be
obtained by contacting the
Commission’s TDD terminal, telephone
202–205–1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Commission instituted this investigation
on October 25, 2017, on a complaint
filed by FUJIFILM Corporation of
Tokyo, Japan and FUJIFILM Recording
Media U.S.A., Inc. of Bedford,
Massachusetts (collectively, ‘‘Fujifilm’’).
82 FR 49421–22 (Oct. 25, 2017). The
complaint alleges violations of 19 U.S.C.
1337, as amended (‘‘Section 337’’), in
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the importation into the United States,
sale for importation, and sale in the
United States after importation of
certain magnetic data storage tapes and
cartridges that infringe one or more of
the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos.
6,630,256 (‘‘the ’256 patent’’), 6,835,451
(‘‘the ’451 patent’’), 7,011,899 (‘‘the ’899
patent’’), 6,462,905 (‘‘the ’905 patent’’),
and 6,783,094 (‘‘the ’094 patent’’). Id.
The notice of investigation named Sony
Corporation of Tokyo, Japan; Sony
Storage Media Solutions Corporation of
Tokyo, Japan; Sony Storage Media
Manufacturing Corporation of Miyagi,
Japan; Sony DADC US Inc. of Terre
Haute, Indiana; and Sony Latin America
Inc. of Miami, Florida (collectively,
‘‘Sony’’) as respondents. Id. The Office
of Unfair Import Investigations (‘‘OUII’’)
was also named a party to the
investigation. Id.
The Commission previously
terminated the investigation as to the
’094 patent and certain claims of the
’905, ’256, ’451, and ’899 patents.
Comm’n Notice (Apr. 17, 2018) (aff’g
Order No. 11); Comm’n Notice (July 9,
2018) (aff’g Order No. 17); Comm’n
Notice (July 27, 2018) (aff’g Order No.
22).
The ALJ held an evidentiary hearing
from June 25–29, 2018. On October 25,
2018, the ALJ issued his final ID, in
which he found Sony in violation of
Section 337 as to the ’256 and ’899
patents, but not the ’905 or ’451 patents.
The ALJ recommended that the
Commission issue a limited exclusion
order and cease and desist orders to
each of the Sony respondents.
The parties filed their respective
petitions for review on November 9,
2018. The parties filed their respective
responses to the petitions on November
20, 2018.
Having reviewed the record in this
investigation, including the ALJ’s orders
and final ID, as well as the parties’
petitions and responses thereto, the
Commission has determined to review
the final ID in part, as follows.
With regard to the ’256 patent, the
Commission has determined to review
the ID’s finding that Fujifilm has
satisfied the technical prong of the
domestic industry requirement.
With regard to the ’899 patent, the
Commission has determined to review
the ID’s construction and application of
the claimed ranges expressed in terms of
‘‘per 6400 mm2’’ and related issues of
infringement and the technical prong of
domestic industry requirement. The
Commission has also determined to
review the ID’s findings as to whether
the asserted claims are invalid as
obvious.
E:\FR\FM\21MRN1.SGM
21MRN1
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 55 / Thursday, March 21, 2019 / Notices
With regard to the ’905 patent, the
Commission has determined to review
the ID’s findings regarding whether
claim 3 of the patent is invalid as
anticipated or obvious.
The Commission has determined not
to review the remaining findings in the
ID.
The parties are asked to provide
additional briefing on the following
issues regarding the ’256, ’899, and ’905
patents, with appropriate reference to
the applicable law and the existing
evidentiary record. For each argument
presented, the parties’ submissions
should set forth whether and/or how
that argument was presented and
preserved in the proceedings before the
ALJ, in conformity with the ALJ’s
Ground Rules (Order No. 2), with
citations to the record:
A. With regard to the ’256 patent,
please identify any technical
specifications, instructions from the
manufacturer, vendor specifications, or
any other evidence as to whether the
sample LTO tapes tested by Fujifilm are
representative of other Fujifilm tapes in
the same product generations.
B. With regard to the ’899 patent,
please explain how a person skilled in
the art would construe the claimed
projection densities expressed in terms
of ‘‘per 6400 mm2’’ in the context of the
patent.
C. Using your claim construction in
(B), above, explain how a skilled artisan
would determine whether a tape
product, which may be 100 meters long
or more, satisfies that claim limitation,
particularly if different measurements
taken from a sample tape yield results
both inside and outside the claimed
ranges. Based on your interpretation and
application of the claimed projection
densities ‘‘per 6400 mm2’’, explain
whether Fujifilm has demonstrated by a
preponderance of the evidence that the
’899 patent claims are infringed or
practiced by Sony or Fujifilm,
respectively.
D. With regard to claim 2 of the ’899
patent, explain whether the evidence of
record supports a finding that the
sample Sony LTO–6 tape examined
during the earlier investigation Certain
Magnetic Tape Cartridges and
Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337–TA–
1036, was sufficiently representative of
Sony tapes being manufactured today
such that the measurements taken from
that earlier tape (e.g., of coefficients of
length variation) can provide reliable
evidence in the present investigation.
E. With regard to the ’899 patent,
explain whether a person skilled in the
art would have been motivated to apply
a Gaussian curve or other statistical
analysis to the measurements disclosed
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Mar 20, 2019
Jkt 247001
in the Sueoka reference (Japanese Patent
Application No. 2001–273623); whether
such an analysis was performed
properly in this case; and whether the
asserted claims are invalid as obvious
over Sueoka in combination with such
an analysis or other knowledge in the
art.
F. With regard to the ’899 patent,
explain whether a person skilled in the
art would have been motivated to
combine Sueoka with the Aonuma
reference (Japanese Patent Application
No. 2003–36520), particularly in view of
the different materials they use, and
whether the asserted claims are invalid
as obvious over Sueoka in combination
with Aonuma.
G. With regard to the ’905 patent,
explain whether Sony has demonstrated
by clear and convincing evidence that
the LTO tapes previously sold by
Fujifilm expressly or inherently
practiced all of the limitations of claim
3, and whether those private sales
constituted an on-sale bar for purposes
of anticipation.
H. With respect to the ’905 patent,
explain whether Sony has shown by
clear and convincing evidence that the
McAllister-I patent (U.S. Patent No.
5,901,916) expressly or inherently
discloses the relative gear sizes recited
in claim 3, and whether the McAllisterI patent anticipates claim 3. If there is
no anticipation, explain whether the
figures and other teachings of the
McAllister-I patent provide clear and
convincing evidence that claim 3 is
obvious.
The parties are requested to brief only
the discrete issues identified above,
with reference to the applicable law and
evidentiary record. The parties are not
to brief any other issues on review,
which have already been adequately
presented in the parties’ previous
filings.
In connection with the final
disposition of this investigation, the
Commission may issue: (1) An
exclusion order that could result in the
exclusion of the subject articles from
entry into the United States, and/or (2)
a cease-and-desist order that could
result in the respondent being required
to cease and desist from engaging in
unfair acts in the importation and sale
of such articles. Accordingly, the
Commission is interested in receiving
written submissions that address the
form of remedy, if any, that should be
ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an
article from entry into the United States
for purposes other than entry for
consumption, the party should so
indicate and provide information
establishing that activities involving
other types of entry either are adversely
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
10533
affecting it or likely to do so. For
background, see Certain Devices for
Connecting Computers via Telephone
Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360, USITC
Pub. No. 2843 (December 1994)
(Commission Opinion).
If the Commission contemplates some
form of remedy, it must consider the
effects of that remedy upon the public
interest. The factors the Commission
will consider include the effect that an
exclusion order and/or cease-and-desist
order would have on: (1) The public
health and welfare; (2) competitive
conditions in the U.S. economy; (3) U.S.
production of articles that are like or
directly competitive with those that are
subject to investigation; and (4) U.S.
consumers. The Commission is
therefore interested in receiving written
submissions that address the
aforementioned public interest factors
in the context of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form
of remedy, the U.S. Trade
Representative, as delegated by the
President, has 60 days to approve or
disapprove the Commission’s action.
See Presidential Memorandum of July
21, 2005. 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005).
During this period, the subject articles
would be entitled to enter the United
States under bond, in an amount
determined by the Commission and
prescribed by the Secretary of the
Treasury. The Commission is therefore
interested in receiving submissions
concerning the amount of the bond that
should be imposed if a remedy is
ordered.
Written Submissions: The parties to
this investigation are requested to file
written submissions on the issues
identified in this Notice and on the
issues of remedy, the public interest,
and bonding. Complainant and OUII are
requested to submit proposed remedial
orders for the Commission’s
consideration. Complainant is also
requested to state the date that the
patents expire and the HTSUS numbers
under which the accused products are
imported. Complainant is further
requested to supply the names of known
importers of the Respondents’ products
at issue in this investigation. The
parties’ written submissions and
proposed remedial orders must be filed
no later than the close of business on
March 29, 2019. Reply submissions
must be filed no later than the close of
business on April 5, 2019. Opening
submissions are limited to 50 pages.
Reply submissions are limited to 40
pages. Such submissions should address
the ALJ’s recommended determination
on remedy and bonding. Interested
government agencies and any other
interested parties are also encouraged to
E:\FR\FM\21MRN1.SGM
21MRN1
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with NOTICES
10534
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 55 / Thursday, March 21, 2019 / Notices
file written submissions on the issues of
remedy, the public interest, and
bonding. Third-party submissions
should be filed no later than the close
of business on March 29, 2019. No
further submissions on any of these
issues will be permitted unless
otherwise ordered by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions
must file the original document
electronically on or before the deadlines
stated above and submit eight (8) true
paper copies to the Office of the
Secretary by noon the next day,
pursuant to section 201.4(f) of the
Commission’s Rule of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)).
Submissions should refer to the
investigation number (‘‘Inv. No. 337–
TA–1076’’) in a prominent place on the
cover page and/or first page. (See
Handbook for Electronic Filing
Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/
documents/handbook_on_filing_
procedures.pdf). 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 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 information,
including confidential business
information and documents for which
confidential treatment is properly
sought, submitted to the Commission for
purposes of this Investigation may be
disclosed to and used: (i) By the
Commission, its employees and Offices,
and contract personnel (a) for
developing or maintaining the records
of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in
internal investigations, audits, reviews,
and evaluations relating to the
programs, personnel, and operations of
the Commission including under 5
U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S.
government employees and contract
personnel[1] solely for cybersecurity
purposes. All non-confidential written
submissions will be available for public
inspection at the Office of the Secretary
and on EDIS.
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
1 All contract personnel will sign appropriate
nondisclosure agreements.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:27 Mar 20, 2019
Jkt 247001
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part
210).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: March 15, 2019.
Katherine Hiner,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2019–05353 Filed 3–20–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. DEA–392]
Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled
Substances Application: Siemens
Healthcare Diagnostics Inc.
ACTION:
JOINT BOARD FOR THE
ENROLLMENT OF ACTUARIES
Meeting of the Advisory Committee;
Meeting
Joint Board for the Enrollment
of Actuaries.
ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory
Committee meeting.
AGENCY:
The Joint Board for the
Enrollment of Actuaries gives notice of
a closed meeting of the Advisory
Committee on Actuarial Examinations.
DATES: The meeting will be held on
April 12, 2019, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00
p.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
Willis Towers Watson, 500 N Akard
Street, 41st Floor, Dallas, TX 75201.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Elizabeth Van Osten, Designated Federal
Officer, Advisory Committee on
Actuarial Examinations, at (202) 317–
3648.
SUMMARY:
Notice is
hereby given that the Advisory
Committee on Actuarial Examinations
will meet at Willis Towers Watson, 500
N Akard Street, 41st Floor, Dallas, TX
75201, on April 12, 2019, from 8:30 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m.
The purpose of the meeting is to
discuss topics and questions that may
be recommended for inclusion on future
Joint Board examinations in actuarial
mathematics, pension law and
methodology referred to in 29 U.S.C.
1242(a)(1)(B).
A determination has been made as
required by section 10(d) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App.,
that the subject of the meeting falls
within the exception to the open
meeting requirement set forth in Title 5
U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), and that the public
interest requires that such meeting be
closed to public participation.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: March 14, 2019.
Thomas V. Curtin, Jr.,
Executive Director, Joint Board for the
Enrollment of Actuaries.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of
the affected basic classes, and
applicants therefore, may file written
comments on or objections to the
issuance of the proposed registration on
or before May 20, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should
be sent to: Drug Enforcement
Administration, Attention: DEA Federal
Register Representative/DPW, 8701
Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia
22152.
DATES:
The
Attorney General has delegated his
authority under the Controlled
Substances Act to the Administrator of
the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to
exercise all necessary functions with
respect to the promulgation and
implementation of 21 CFR part 1301,
incident to the registration of
manufacturers, distributors, dispensers,
importers, and exporters of controlled
substances (other than final orders in
connection with suspension, denial, or
revocation of registration) has been
redelegated to the Assistant
Administrator of the DEA Diversion
Control Division (‘‘Assistant
Administrator’’) pursuant to section 7 of
28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR
1301.33(a), this is notice that on Dec 12,
2018, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics
Inc., 100 GBC Drive, Mailstop 514,
Newark, Delaware 19702–2461 applied
to be registered as a bulk manufacturer
of the following basic class of controlled
substance:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Controlled substance
Ecgonine ........................
Drug
code
9180
Schedule
II
The company plans to produce the
listed controlled substance in bulk to be
used in the manufacture of DEA exempt
products.
Dated: March 6, 2019.
John J. Martin,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019–05402 Filed 3–20–19; 8:45 am]
[FR Doc. 2019–05392 Filed 3–20–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\21MRN1.SGM
21MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 55 (Thursday, March 21, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10532-10534]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05353]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-1076]
Certain Magnetic Data Storage Tapes and Cartridges Containing the
Same (II); Notice of a Commission Determination To Review in Part a
Final Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; and
Schedule for Filing Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review and
on Remedy, Public Interest, and Bonding
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission (the ``Commission'') has determined to review in part the
final initial determination (``ID'') of the administrative law judge
(``ALJ''), which was issued on October 25, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl P. Bretscher, Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2382. 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 Information System (``EDIS'')
(https://edis.usitc.gov). Hearing-impaired persons are advised that
information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the
Commission's TDD terminal, telephone 202-205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation
on October 25, 2017, on a complaint filed by FUJIFILM Corporation of
Tokyo, Japan and FUJIFILM Recording Media U.S.A., Inc. of Bedford,
Massachusetts (collectively, ``Fujifilm''). 82 FR 49421-22 (Oct. 25,
2017). The complaint alleges violations of 19 U.S.C. 1337, as amended
(``Section 337''), in the importation into the United States, sale for
importation, and sale in the United States after importation of certain
magnetic data storage tapes and cartridges that infringe one or more of
the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,630,256 (``the '256
patent''), 6,835,451 (``the '451 patent''), 7,011,899 (``the '899
patent''), 6,462,905 (``the '905 patent''), and 6,783,094 (``the '094
patent''). Id. The notice of investigation named Sony Corporation of
Tokyo, Japan; Sony Storage Media Solutions Corporation of Tokyo, Japan;
Sony Storage Media Manufacturing Corporation of Miyagi, Japan; Sony
DADC US Inc. of Terre Haute, Indiana; and Sony Latin America Inc. of
Miami, Florida (collectively, ``Sony'') as respondents. Id. The Office
of Unfair Import Investigations (``OUII'') was also named a party to
the investigation. Id.
The Commission previously terminated the investigation as to the
'094 patent and certain claims of the '905, '256, '451, and '899
patents. Comm'n Notice (Apr. 17, 2018) (aff'g Order No. 11); Comm'n
Notice (July 9, 2018) (aff'g Order No. 17); Comm'n Notice (July 27,
2018) (aff'g Order No. 22).
The ALJ held an evidentiary hearing from June 25-29, 2018. On
October 25, 2018, the ALJ issued his final ID, in which he found Sony
in violation of Section 337 as to the '256 and '899 patents, but not
the '905 or '451 patents. The ALJ recommended that the Commission issue
a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders to each of the
Sony respondents.
The parties filed their respective petitions for review on November
9, 2018. The parties filed their respective responses to the petitions
on November 20, 2018.
Having reviewed the record in this investigation, including the
ALJ's orders and final ID, as well as the parties' petitions and
responses thereto, the Commission has determined to review the final ID
in part, as follows.
With regard to the '256 patent, the Commission has determined to
review the ID's finding that Fujifilm has satisfied the technical prong
of the domestic industry requirement.
With regard to the '899 patent, the Commission has determined to
review the ID's construction and application of the claimed ranges
expressed in terms of ``per 6400 [mu]m\2\'' and related issues of
infringement and the technical prong of domestic industry requirement.
The Commission has also determined to review the ID's findings as to
whether the asserted claims are invalid as obvious.
[[Page 10533]]
With regard to the '905 patent, the Commission has determined to
review the ID's findings regarding whether claim 3 of the patent is
invalid as anticipated or obvious.
The Commission has determined not to review the remaining findings
in the ID.
The parties are asked to provide additional briefing on the
following issues regarding the '256, '899, and '905 patents, with
appropriate reference to the applicable law and the existing
evidentiary record. For each argument presented, the parties'
submissions should set forth whether and/or how that argument was
presented and preserved in the proceedings before the ALJ, in
conformity with the ALJ's Ground Rules (Order No. 2), with citations to
the record:
A. With regard to the '256 patent, please identify any technical
specifications, instructions from the manufacturer, vendor
specifications, or any other evidence as to whether the sample LTO
tapes tested by Fujifilm are representative of other Fujifilm tapes in
the same product generations.
B. With regard to the '899 patent, please explain how a person
skilled in the art would construe the claimed projection densities
expressed in terms of ``per 6400 [mu]m\2\'' in the context of the
patent.
C. Using your claim construction in (B), above, explain how a
skilled artisan would determine whether a tape product, which may be
100 meters long or more, satisfies that claim limitation, particularly
if different measurements taken from a sample tape yield results both
inside and outside the claimed ranges. Based on your interpretation and
application of the claimed projection densities ``per 6400 [mu]m\2\'',
explain whether Fujifilm has demonstrated by a preponderance of the
evidence that the '899 patent claims are infringed or practiced by Sony
or Fujifilm, respectively.
D. With regard to claim 2 of the '899 patent, explain whether the
evidence of record supports a finding that the sample Sony LTO-6 tape
examined during the earlier investigation Certain Magnetic Tape
Cartridges and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1036, was
sufficiently representative of Sony tapes being manufactured today such
that the measurements taken from that earlier tape (e.g., of
coefficients of length variation) can provide reliable evidence in the
present investigation.
E. With regard to the '899 patent, explain whether a person skilled
in the art would have been motivated to apply a Gaussian curve or other
statistical analysis to the measurements disclosed in the Sueoka
reference (Japanese Patent Application No. 2001-273623); whether such
an analysis was performed properly in this case; and whether the
asserted claims are invalid as obvious over Sueoka in combination with
such an analysis or other knowledge in the art.
F. With regard to the '899 patent, explain whether a person skilled
in the art would have been motivated to combine Sueoka with the Aonuma
reference (Japanese Patent Application No. 2003-36520), particularly in
view of the different materials they use, and whether the asserted
claims are invalid as obvious over Sueoka in combination with Aonuma.
G. With regard to the '905 patent, explain whether Sony has
demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the LTO tapes
previously sold by Fujifilm expressly or inherently practiced all of
the limitations of claim 3, and whether those private sales constituted
an on-sale bar for purposes of anticipation.
H. With respect to the '905 patent, explain whether Sony has shown
by clear and convincing evidence that the McAllister-I patent (U.S.
Patent No. 5,901,916) expressly or inherently discloses the relative
gear sizes recited in claim 3, and whether the McAllister-I patent
anticipates claim 3. If there is no anticipation, explain whether the
figures and other teachings of the McAllister-I patent provide clear
and convincing evidence that claim 3 is obvious.
The parties are requested to brief only the discrete issues
identified above, with reference to the applicable law and evidentiary
record. The parties are not to brief any other issues on review, which
have already been adequately presented in the parties' previous
filings.
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the
Commission may issue: (1) An exclusion order that could result in the
exclusion of the subject articles from entry into the United States,
and/or (2) a cease-and-desist order that could result in the respondent
being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the
importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the Commission is
interested in receiving written submissions that address the form of
remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of
an article from entry into the United States for purposes other than
entry for consumption, the party should so indicate and provide
information establishing that activities involving other types of entry
either are adversely affecting it or likely to do so. For background,
see Certain Devices for Connecting Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv.
No. 337-TA-360, USITC Pub. No. 2843 (December 1994) (Commission
Opinion).
If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must
consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The
factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an
exclusion order and/or cease-and-desist order would have on: (1) The
public health and welfare; (2) competitive conditions in the U.S.
economy; (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly
competitive with those that are subject to investigation; and (4) U.S.
consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written
submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in
the context of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade
Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve
or disapprove the Commission's action. See Presidential Memorandum of
July 21, 2005. 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). During this period, the
subject articles would be entitled to enter the United States under
bond, in an amount determined by the Commission and prescribed by the
Secretary of the Treasury. The Commission is therefore interested in
receiving submissions concerning the amount of the bond that should be
imposed if a remedy is ordered.
Written Submissions: The parties to this investigation are
requested to file written submissions on the issues identified in this
Notice and on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding.
Complainant and OUII are requested to submit proposed remedial orders
for the Commission's consideration. Complainant is also requested to
state the date that the patents expire and the HTSUS numbers under
which the accused products are imported. Complainant is further
requested to supply the names of known importers of the Respondents'
products at issue in this investigation. The parties' written
submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than
the close of business on March 29, 2019. Reply submissions must be
filed no later than the close of business on April 5, 2019. Opening
submissions are limited to 50 pages. Reply submissions are limited to
40 pages. Such submissions should address the ALJ's recommended
determination on remedy and bonding. Interested government agencies and
any other interested parties are also encouraged to
[[Page 10534]]
file written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest,
and bonding. Third-party submissions should be filed no later than the
close of business on March 29, 2019. No further submissions on any of
these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the
Commission.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document
electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit eight
(8) true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next
day, pursuant to section 201.4(f) of the Commission's Rule of Practice
and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the
investigation number (``Inv. No. 337-TA-1076'') in a prominent place on
the cover page and/or first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing
Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf). 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 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
information, including confidential business information and documents
for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the
Commission for purposes of this Investigation may be disclosed to and
used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract
personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a
related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews,
and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of
the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S.
government employees and contract personnel[1] solely for
cybersecurity purposes. All non-confidential written submissions will
be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and
on EDIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure
agreements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 15, 2019.
Katherine Hiner,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2019-05353 Filed 3-20-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
