Certain Powered Cover Plates; Commission Determination To Review in Part and To Remand a Final Initial Determination, 55985-55986 [2019-22754]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 202 / Friday, October 18, 2019 / Notices
Description of Respondents:
Businesses that seek authorization to
use public lands for solar or wind
energy development, pipelines, or
electric transmission lines with a
capacity of 100 Kilovolts (kV) or more.
Total Estimated Number of Annual
Responses: 3,042.
Estimated Completion Time per
Response: Varies from 2 to 16 hours,
depending on the activity.
Total Estimated Number of Annual
Burden Hours: 47,112.
Respondent’s Obligation: Required to
obtain or retain a benefit.
Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
Total Estimated Annual Nonhour
Burden Cost: $2,180,808.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The authority for this
action is the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
Jean Sonneman,
Information Collection Clearance Officer,
Bureau of Land Management.
[FR Doc. 2019–22806 Filed 10–17–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–84–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–1124]
Certain Powered Cover Plates;
Commission Determination To Review
in Part and To Remand a Final Initial
Determination
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review
in part and remand in part the final
initial determination (‘‘ID’’) issued by
the presiding administrative law judge
(‘‘ALJ’’) on August 12, 2019, finding a
violation of section 337 in the abovereferenced investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–3115. 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
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:37 Oct 17, 2019
Jkt 250001
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 the investigation
on July 23, 2018, based on a complaint
filed by SnapRays, LLC d/b/a
SnapPower of Vineyard, UT
(‘‘SnapPower’’). 83 FR 34871 (July 23,
2018). The complaint, as supplemented,
alleges a violation of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19
U.S.C. 1337 (‘‘section 337’’), based upon
the importation into the United States,
the sale for importation, and the sale
within the United States after
importation of certain powered cover
plates by reason of infringement of
certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos.
9,871,324 (‘‘the ’324 patent’’); 9,882,361
(‘‘the ’361 patent’’); 9,917,430 (‘‘the ’430
patent’’); and U.S. Design Patent No.
D819,426 (‘‘the Design Patent,’’ or ‘‘the
’D426 patent’’) (collectively, ‘‘the
Asserted Patents’’). Id. at 34872. The
notice of investigation named thirteen
respondents: (1) Ontel Products
Corporation of Fairfield, New Jersey
(‘‘Ontel’’); (2) Dazone, LLC of Ontario,
Canada (‘‘Dazone’’); (3) Shenzhen CMyway of Shenzhen, Guangdong, China
(‘‘C-Myway’’); (4) E-Zshop4u LLC of
Howey in the Hills, Florida (‘‘E–
ZShop4u’’); (5) Desteny Store of Fort
Meyers, Florida (‘‘Desteny’’); (6)
Zhongshan Led-Up Light Co., Ltd. of
Zhongshan, Guangdong, China (‘‘LedUp’’); (7) AllTrade Tools LLC of
Cypress, California (‘‘Alltrade’’); (8)
Guangzhou Sailu Info Tech. Co., Ltd. of
Guangzhou, Gunagdong, China
(‘‘Guangzhou Sailu’’); (9) Zhejiang NewEpoch Communication Industry Co.,
Ltd. of Yueging, Zhejiang, China
(‘‘NEPCI’’); (10) KCC Industries of
Eastvale, California (‘‘KCC’’); (11) Vistek
Technology Co., Ltd. of Fuyong, Baoan,
Shenzhen, China (‘‘Vistek’’); (12)
Enstant Technology Co., Ltd. of Xixiang
Baoan District, Shenzhen, China
(‘‘Enstant’’); and (13) Manufacturers
Components Incorporated of Pompano
Beach, Florida (‘‘MCI’’) (collectively,
‘‘the Respondents’’). Id. The
Commission’s Office of Unfair Import
Investigations (‘‘OUII’’) was also named
as a party.
The evidentiary hearing on the
question of violation of section 337 was
held April 8–9, 2019. As of the date of
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
55985
the evidentiary hearing, as well as of the
date of the issuance of the ID, the status
of all 13 of the named Respondents was
as follows:
Ontel—terminated by settlement
(Order No. 12, non-reviewed Nov. 27,
2018);
E-Zshop4U—terminated by Consent
Order (Order No. 5, non-reviewed Oct.
29, 2018);
KCC—terminated by Consent Order
(Order No. 6, non-reviewed Oct. 29,
2018);
Alltrade—terminated by settlement
(Order, No. 36, non-reviewed May 8,
2019);
Dazone—found in default (Order No.
18, non-reviewed Dec. 21, 2018);
Desteny—found in default (Order No.
18, non-reviewed Dec. 21, 2018);
NEPCI—found in default (Order No.
18, non-reviewed Dec. 21, 2018);
MCI—found in default (Order No. 18,
non-reviewed Dec. 21, 2018);
Myway—Complaint withdrawn due
to inability to serve this respondent
(Order No. 8, non-reviewed October 23,
2018);
Led-Up—complaint withdrawn due to
inability to serve this respondent (Order
No. 8, non-reviewed October 23, 2018);
Guangzhou Sailu—complaint
withdrawn due to inability to serve this
respondent (Order No. 8, non-reviewed
October 23, 2018);
Enstant—actively participated in all
proceedings, and
Vistek—actively participated in all
proceedings. See ID/RD at 11–12.
Complainant SnapPower, respondents
Enstant and Vistek (collectively,
‘‘Enstant/Vistek,’’ or ‘‘the Participating
Respondents’’), and the Commission
investigative attorney (‘‘the IA’’)
participated in the hearing. See id. at 11.
We note that Respondents Enstant
and Vistek chose not to contest
importation and infringement.
Similarly, there were no genuine
disputes of material fact with respect to
the technical prong of the domestic
industry (‘‘DI’’) requirement. As a result,
these legal issues have been decided
against Enstant and Vistek and against
a category of Respondents identified by
the ID as the ‘‘Defaulting Respondents’’
through summary determination (‘‘SD’’)
orders. ID/RD at 2–3 (citing Order Nos.
39 (July 10, 2019) (Importation and
Infringement), 40 (July 22, 2019)
(Technical DI)). In particular, Order No.
39 explains the rationale and
evidentiary basis for granting
SnapPower’s Infringement SD Motion.
Id. at 12–13 (citing Order No. 39, Doc.
ID No. 680751 (July 10, 2019)). Order
No. 39 became the Commission’s
determination on August 1, 2019,
E:\FR\FM\18OCN1.SGM
18OCN1
55986
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 202 / Friday, October 18, 2019 / Notices
pursuant to Commission Rule
210.42(h)(3), 19 CFR 210.42(h)(3).
On August 12, 2019, the ALJ issued
her ‘‘Initial Determination on Violation
of Section 337 and Recommended
Determination on Remedy and Bond,’’
finding a violation of section 337. The
ID finds that a violation of section 337
occurred in the importation into the
United States, the sale for importation,
or the sale within the United States after
importation, of certain powered cover
plates that infringe the asserted claims
of the ’361 patent by Enstant/Vistek. See
id. at 125–26. The ID also finds, inter
alia, that ‘‘Respondents Enstant and
Vistek filed a motion for summary
determination of non-infringement
(‘Redesign SD Motion’) of [the ’361
patent] by Redesign Models P001 (Smart
Wall Plate Charger, Decor Outlet, with
USB charger) and P002 (Smart Wall
Plate Charger, Duplex Outlet with USB
charger).’’ ID at 14. Further, the ID states
that ‘‘Enstant’s and Vistek’s Redesign
SD Motion was effectively rendered
moot by rulings on Motions in Limine
. . . .’’ Id.
In her Recommended Determination
(‘‘RD’’), the ALJ recommended that the
Commission should issue a General
Exclusion Order, Cease and Desist
Orders, and impose a one hundred
percent bond during the period of
Presidential Review. Id. at 126.
On August 26, 2019, Participating
Respondents Enstant/Vistek jointly filed
a timely petition for review of various
portions of the ID. The IA likewise
timely filed a petition for review of the
ID in part. On September 3, 2019,
Snappower timely filed a response to
Enstant/Vistek’s and the IA’s petitions
for review. The IA likewise timely filed
a response to Enstant/Vistek’s petition
for review.
Having examined the record in this
investigation, including the final ID, the
petitions for review, and the responses
thereto, the Commission has determined
to review the final ID in part. In
particular, the Commission has
determined: (1) To review the final ID’s
finding that Enstant/Vistek’s redesign
summary determination motion is moot,
see id. at 14–15, and on review, to
remand the final ID on this issue; (2) to
review the ID’s finding that
Complainant’s R&D investment with
respect to the ’361 patent is substantial
under Section 337 (a)(3)(C), ID at 97,
and on review, to take no position with
regard to this determination; (3) to
review, and on review to strike, the
third paragraph on page 56 of the ID;
and (4) to correct the ID’s misstatements
regarding the asserted claims of the ’361
patent, see id. at 3–4, Table 1; id. at 125
¶¶ 3, 6, to the effect that the asserted
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:37 Oct 17, 2019
Jkt 250001
claims of the ’361 patent include claims
1, 4, 10, 14, 21, 23, and 24. The
Commission has determined not to
review the remainder of the ID.
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: October 11, 2019.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2019–22754 Filed 10–17–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–1123]
Certain Carburetors and Products
Containing Such Carburetors;
Commission Decision To Review in
Part an Initial Determination Finding
Complainant Failed To Satisfy the
Economic Prong of the Domestic
Industry Requirement; Termination of
the Investigation
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review
in part the administrative law judge’s
(‘‘ALJ’’) initial determination (‘‘ID’’),
which grants respondents’ motion for
summary determination that the
complainant failed to satisfy the
economic prong of the domestic
industry requirement as to U.S. Patent
Nos. 6,394,424 (‘‘the ’424 patent’’);
6,439,547 (‘‘the ’547 patent’’); 6,533,254
(‘‘the ’254 patent’’); and 7,070,173 (‘‘the
’173 patent). On review, the
Commission affirms with modification
the ID’s finding that respondents are
entitled to summary determination that
the complainant failed to satisfy the
domestic industry requirement. The
investigation is terminated.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lynde Herzbach, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–3228. 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
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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, 2018, based on a complaint
filed by Walbro, LLC (‘‘Walbro’’) of
Tucson, Arizona. 83 FR 34614–615 (July
20, 2018). The complaint, as
supplemented, alleges violations of
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (‘‘section
337’’) based upon the importation into
the United States, the sale for
importation, and the sale within the
United States after importation of
certain carburetors and products
containing such carburetors by reason of
infringement of one or more claims of
the ’424 patent; the ’547 patent; the ’254
patent; the ’173 patent, and U.S. Patent
No. 6,540,212 (‘‘the ’212 patent). Id. The
complaint also alleges that an industry
in the United States exists as required
by 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(2). 83 FR 34614–
615. The notice of investigation names
thirty-five (35) respondents. Id. The
Office of Unfair Import Investigations
(‘‘OUII’’) is also a party to the
investigation. Id.
The Commission previously
terminated the ’212 patent from the
investigation. Order No. 72 (Aug. 5,
2019), not reviewed, Notice (Aug. 22,
2019).
On June 25, 2019, respondents
Amazon.com, Inc.; Lowe’s Companies,
Inc.; Menard, Inc.; Techtronic Industries
Co. Ltd.; The Home Depot, Inc.; Tractor
Supply Company; Walmart, Inc.; and
Zhejiang Ruixing Carburetor
Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (collectively,
‘‘Respondents’’), as well as Cabela’s LLC
and Thunderbay Products, filed a
motion for summary determination that
Walbro failed to satisfy the economic
prong of the domestic industry
requirement. ID at 1. On July 12, 2019,
Walbro opposed the motion. Id. OUII
did not submit a response to the motion.
Id.
On August 7, 2019, the Commission
terminated Cabela’s LLC from the
investigation due to settlement. Order
No. 75 (Aug. 7, 2019), not reviewed,
Notice (Aug. 22, 2019). On July 10,
2019, the Commission also terminated
Thunderbay Products from the
E:\FR\FM\18OCN1.SGM
18OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 202 (Friday, October 18, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55985-55986]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22754]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-1124]
Certain Powered Cover Plates; Commission Determination To Review
in Part and To Remand a Final Initial Determination
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 and remand in part the
final initial determination (``ID'') issued by the presiding
administrative law judge (``ALJ'') on August 12, 2019, finding a
violation of section 337 in the above-referenced investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3115. 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 the investigation
on July 23, 2018, based on a complaint filed by SnapRays, LLC d/b/a
SnapPower of Vineyard, UT (``SnapPower''). 83 FR 34871 (July 23, 2018).
The complaint, as supplemented, alleges a violation of section 337 of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (``section 337''),
based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for
importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of
certain powered cover plates by reason of infringement of certain
claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,871,324 (``the '324 patent''); 9,882,361
(``the '361 patent''); 9,917,430 (``the '430 patent''); and U.S. Design
Patent No. D819,426 (``the Design Patent,'' or ``the 'D426 patent'')
(collectively, ``the Asserted Patents''). Id. at 34872. The notice of
investigation named thirteen respondents: (1) Ontel Products
Corporation of Fairfield, New Jersey (``Ontel''); (2) Dazone, LLC of
Ontario, Canada (``Dazone''); (3) Shenzhen C-Myway of Shenzhen,
Guangdong, China (``C-Myway''); (4) E-Zshop4u LLC of Howey in the
Hills, Florida (``E-ZShop4u''); (5) Desteny Store of Fort Meyers,
Florida (``Desteny''); (6) Zhongshan Led-Up Light Co., Ltd. of
Zhongshan, Guangdong, China (``Led-Up''); (7) AllTrade Tools LLC of
Cypress, California (``Alltrade''); (8) Guangzhou Sailu Info Tech. Co.,
Ltd. of Guangzhou, Gunagdong, China (``Guangzhou Sailu''); (9) Zhejiang
New-Epoch Communication Industry Co., Ltd. of Yueging, Zhejiang, China
(``NEPCI''); (10) KCC Industries of Eastvale, California (``KCC'');
(11) Vistek Technology Co., Ltd. of Fuyong, Baoan, Shenzhen, China
(``Vistek''); (12) Enstant Technology Co., Ltd. of Xixiang Baoan
District, Shenzhen, China (``Enstant''); and (13) Manufacturers
Components Incorporated of Pompano Beach, Florida (``MCI'')
(collectively, ``the Respondents''). Id. The Commission's Office of
Unfair Import Investigations (``OUII'') was also named as a party.
The evidentiary hearing on the question of violation of section 337
was held April 8-9, 2019. As of the date of the evidentiary hearing, as
well as of the date of the issuance of the ID, the status of all 13 of
the named Respondents was as follows:
Ontel--terminated by settlement (Order No. 12, non-reviewed Nov.
27, 2018);
E-Zshop4U--terminated by Consent Order (Order No. 5, non-reviewed
Oct. 29, 2018);
KCC--terminated by Consent Order (Order No. 6, non-reviewed Oct.
29, 2018);
Alltrade--terminated by settlement (Order, No. 36, non-reviewed May
8, 2019);
Dazone--found in default (Order No. 18, non-reviewed Dec. 21,
2018);
Desteny--found in default (Order No. 18, non-reviewed Dec. 21,
2018);
NEPCI--found in default (Order No. 18, non-reviewed Dec. 21, 2018);
MCI--found in default (Order No. 18, non-reviewed Dec. 21, 2018);
Myway--Complaint withdrawn due to inability to serve this
respondent (Order No. 8, non-reviewed October 23, 2018);
Led-Up--complaint withdrawn due to inability to serve this
respondent (Order No. 8, non-reviewed October 23, 2018);
Guangzhou Sailu--complaint withdrawn due to inability to serve this
respondent (Order No. 8, non-reviewed October 23, 2018);
Enstant--actively participated in all proceedings, and
Vistek--actively participated in all proceedings. See ID/RD at 11-
12.
Complainant SnapPower, respondents Enstant and Vistek
(collectively, ``Enstant/Vistek,'' or ``the Participating
Respondents''), and the Commission investigative attorney (``the IA'')
participated in the hearing. See id. at 11.
We note that Respondents Enstant and Vistek chose not to contest
importation and infringement. Similarly, there were no genuine disputes
of material fact with respect to the technical prong of the domestic
industry (``DI'') requirement. As a result, these legal issues have
been decided against Enstant and Vistek and against a category of
Respondents identified by the ID as the ``Defaulting Respondents''
through summary determination (``SD'') orders. ID/RD at 2-3 (citing
Order Nos. 39 (July 10, 2019) (Importation and Infringement), 40 (July
22, 2019) (Technical DI)). In particular, Order No. 39 explains the
rationale and evidentiary basis for granting SnapPower's Infringement
SD Motion. Id. at 12-13 (citing Order No. 39, Doc. ID No. 680751 (July
10, 2019)). Order No. 39 became the Commission's determination on
August 1, 2019,
[[Page 55986]]
pursuant to Commission Rule 210.42(h)(3), 19 CFR 210.42(h)(3).
On August 12, 2019, the ALJ issued her ``Initial Determination on
Violation of Section 337 and Recommended Determination on Remedy and
Bond,'' finding a violation of section 337. The ID finds that a
violation of section 337 occurred in the importation into the United
States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States
after importation, of certain powered cover plates that infringe the
asserted claims of the '361 patent by Enstant/Vistek. See id. at 125-
26. The ID also finds, inter alia, that ``Respondents Enstant and
Vistek filed a motion for summary determination of non-infringement
(`Redesign SD Motion') of [the '361 patent] by Redesign Models P001
(Smart Wall Plate Charger, Decor Outlet, with USB charger) and P002
(Smart Wall Plate Charger, Duplex Outlet with USB charger).'' ID at 14.
Further, the ID states that ``Enstant's and Vistek's Redesign SD Motion
was effectively rendered moot by rulings on Motions in Limine . . . .''
Id.
In her Recommended Determination (``RD''), the ALJ recommended that
the Commission should issue a General Exclusion Order, Cease and Desist
Orders, and impose a one hundred percent bond during the period of
Presidential Review. Id. at 126.
On August 26, 2019, Participating Respondents Enstant/Vistek
jointly filed a timely petition for review of various portions of the
ID. The IA likewise timely filed a petition for review of the ID in
part. On September 3, 2019, Snappower timely filed a response to
Enstant/Vistek's and the IA's petitions for review. The IA likewise
timely filed a response to Enstant/Vistek's petition for review.
Having examined the record in this investigation, including the
final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the
Commission has determined to review the final ID in part. In
particular, the Commission has determined: (1) To review the final ID's
finding that Enstant/Vistek's redesign summary determination motion is
moot, see id. at 14-15, and on review, to remand the final ID on this
issue; (2) to review the ID's finding that Complainant's R&D investment
with respect to the '361 patent is substantial under Section 337
(a)(3)(C), ID at 97, and on review, to take no position with regard to
this determination; (3) to review, and on review to strike, the third
paragraph on page 56 of the ID; and (4) to correct the ID's
misstatements regarding the asserted claims of the '361 patent, see id.
at 3-4, Table 1; id. at 125 ]] 3, 6, to the effect that the asserted
claims of the '361 patent include claims 1, 4, 10, 14, 21, 23, and 24.
The Commission has determined not to review the remainder of the ID.
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: October 11, 2019.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2019-22754 Filed 10-17-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
