Certain Gas Spring Nailer Products and Components Thereof; Notice of Commission Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Issuance of Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Order; Termination of the Investigation, 14244-14246 [2020-04925]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
14244
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 48 / Wednesday, March 11, 2020 / Notices
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–1005 (Remand)]
Certain L-Tryptophan, L-Tryptophan
Products, and Their Methods of
Production; Notice of a Commission
Determination Vacating the Portion the
Final Determination Relating To United
States Patent No. 6,180,373 and the
Limited Exclusion Order Based
Thereon
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to vacate
the portion of its final determination
relating to United States Patent No.
6,180,373 (‘‘the ‘373 patent’’) and its
limited exclusion order based thereon.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Houda Morad, 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: On June
27, 2018, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit found
that a portion of the consolidated appeal
in Ajinomoto Co., Inc. v. International
Trade Commission, Appeal Nos. 2018–
1590, –1629, was moot by reason of the
expiration of the ’373 patent and
remanded the investigation to the
Commission to determine whether to
vacate the portion of the underlying
final determination relating to the ‘373
patent.
The Federal Circuit appeal at issue
stemmed from Certain L-Tryptophan, LTryptophan Products, and Their
Methods of Production, Investigation
No. 337–TA–1005. This investigation
was instituted based on a complaint
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:37 Mar 10, 2020
Jkt 250001
filed by Complainants Ajinomoto Co.,
Inc. of Tokyo, Japan and Ajinomoto
Heartland Inc. of Chicago, Illinois
(collectively, ‘‘Complainants’’). See 81
FR 38735–36 (June 14, 2016). The
complaint, as supplemented, alleged
violations of section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C.
1337), based upon the importation into
the United States, the sale for
importation, and the sale within the
United States after importation of
certain L-tryptophan, L-tryptophan
products, and their methods of
production by reason of infringement of
certain claims of U.S. Patent No.
7,666,655 (‘‘the ’655 patent’’) and U.S.
Patent No. 6,180,373 (‘‘the ’373 patent’’).
See id. The notice of investigation
identified CJ CheilJedang Corp. of Seoul,
Republic of Korea, CJ America, Inc. of
Downers Grove, Illinois, and PT
CheilJedang Indonesia of Jakarta,
Indonesia (collectively, ‘‘Respondents’’)
as respondents in this investigation. See
id. The Office of Unfair Import
Investigations was not a party to the
investigation. See id.
On August 11, 2017, the
Administrative Law Judge issued his
final initial determination finding no
violation of section 337. On December
18, 2017, the Commission reversed and
found a section 337 violation with
respect to both the ’655 and the ’373
patents. The ’373 patent expired on
January 30, 2018.
On February 27, 2018, Respondents
filed a notice of appeal of the
Commission’s final determination with
the Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit. Their appeal was consolidated
with Complainant’s appeal filed on
February 16, 2018. In addition, on May
25, 2018, Respondents filed a corrected
motion that sought partial dismissal of
the appeal with respect to the nowexpired ’373 patent, vacatur of the
related portions of the Commission’s
final determination, and remand to the
Commission with an instruction to
dismiss the related portion of the
complaint. The Commission did not file
a response to Respondents’ motion. On
June 4, 2018, Complainants filed a
response to Respondents’ motion and
indicated that while it agreed to the
partial dismissal of the appeal, it
objected to the vacatur of the portion of
the Commission’s final determination.
On June 27, 2018, the Federal Circuit
granted Respondents’ motion ‘‘to the
extent that this matter is remanded for
the limited purposes of allowing the
Commission to address whether to
vacate its final determinations relating
to the ’373 patent.’’ Ajinomoto Co., Inc.
v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, Consolidated
Appeal Nos. 18–1590, –1629, Order at 3
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(ECF No. 38) (Fed. Cir. June 27, 2018).
The Federal Circuit retained jurisdiction
over the remainder of the appeal, which
it affirmed on August 6, 2019.
Ajinomoto Co., Inc. v. Int’l Trade
Comm’n, 932 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
A petition for writ of certiorari was filed
with the Supreme Court on February 24,
2020. CJ CheilJedang Corp. v. Int’l Trade
Comm’n, No. 19–1062 (filed Feb. 24,
2020).
The Commission has determined to
vacate the portion of its final
determination relating to the ’373 patent
and its limited exclusion order based
thereon. The Commission’s opinion is
being issued concurrently herewith. The
Commission hereby terminates this
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.
Issued: March 5, 2020.
William Bishop,
Supervisory Hearings and Information
Officer.
[FR Doc. 2020–04934 Filed 3–10–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–1082]
Certain Gas Spring Nailer Products
and Components Thereof; Notice of
Commission Determination Finding a
Violation of Section 337; Issuance of
Limited Exclusion Order and Cease
and Desist Order; Termination of the
Investigation
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission (‘‘the Commission’’) has
determined to find a violation of section
337. Specifically, the Commission has
determined to affirm in part, reverse in
part, and modify in part both an initial
determination (‘‘ID’’) and a remand
initial determination (‘‘RID’’) of the
presiding administrative law judge
(‘‘ALJ’’). The Commission has issued a
limited exclusion order (‘‘LEO’’)
directed against infringing gas spring
nailer products and components thereof
of respondent Hitachi Koki U.S.A., Ltd.
(‘‘Hitachi’’) of Braselton, Georgia and a
cease and desist order (‘‘CDO’’) directed
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 48 / Wednesday, March 11, 2020 / Notices
against Hitachi. The investigation is
terminated.
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 November 20, 2017, based on a
complaint filed on behalf of Kyocera
Senco Brands Inc. (‘‘Kyocera’’) of
Cincinnati, Ohio. 82 FR 55118–19 (Nov.
20, 2017). The complaint, as amended
and 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 gas spring nailer products and
components thereof by reason of
infringement of certain claims of U.S.
Patent Nos. 8,011,547 (‘‘the ’547
patent’’); 8,267,296 (‘‘the ’296 patent’’);
8,27,297 (‘‘the ’297 patent’’); 8,387,718
(‘‘the ’718 patent’’); 8,286,722 (‘‘the ’722
patent’’); and 8,602,282 (‘‘the ’282
patent’’). The complaint further alleges
the existence of a domestic industry.
The Commission’s notice of
investigation named Hitachi as a
respondent. The Office of Unfair Import
Investigations is not participating in the
investigation. The ’547 patent has been
terminated from the investigation and
the notice of investigation was amended
to add claim 30 of the ’297 patent to the
investigation. Order No. 13 (June 4,
2018), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice
(June 22, 2018); Order No. 15 (June 19,
2018), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice
(July 9, 2018), 83 FR 32685–66 (July 15,
2018). Prior to the evidentiary hearing,
the parties stipulated that the ’718
patent is the only remaining patent at
issue because no violation could be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:37 Mar 10, 2020
Jkt 250001
shown as to the ’296, ’297, ’722, and
’282 patents based on an evidentiary
ruling limiting the Kyocera’s expert’s
testimony. See ID at 1–2. At the hearing,
Kyocera asserted claims 1, 10, and 16
(the ‘‘asserted claims’’) of the ’718
patent. Id. at 2, 21.
On June 7, 2019, the ALJ issued a
final ID finding no violation of section
337 as to the ’718 patent based on noninfringement and the failure of Kyocera
to establish the existence of a domestic
industry (‘‘DI’’) that practices the ’718
patent. Specifically, the ID finds that
Kyocera failed to show that the accused
products or the domestic industry
products practice the asserted claims.
The ID also finds that Kyocera satisfied
the economic prong of the DI
requirement under section 337(a)(3)(B).
The ID also includes a recommended
determination on remedy and bonding
(‘‘RD’’) during the period of Presidential
review. The RD recommends an LEO
directed to gas spring nailer products
and components thereof that infringe
the asserted claims of the ’718 patent,
and recommends a CDO directed against
Hitachi. The RD does not recommend
imposing a bond.
On August 14, 2019, the Commission
determined to review the ID in part and
remand in part. See Comm’n Notice
(Aug. 14, 2019). Specifically, the
Commission determined to review the
ID’s finding that Kyocera did not
establish: (1) Either direct or induced
infringement of the asserted claims of
the ’718 patent, and (2) practice of the
asserted claims by the DI products to
satisfy the DI requirement. The
Commission also determined to review
the ID’s finding that Kyocera has
satisfied the economic prong of the DI
requirement. Id. The Commission
remanded the issues of whether Kyocera
has established, by a preponderance of
the evidence, that: (1) The remaining
limitations (irrespective of the ‘‘system
controller’’ limitation, i.e., ‘‘a circuit
configured to control operation based on
received input signals’’) of the asserted
claims of the ’718 patent are met by the
accused products; (2) the remaining
limitations of the asserted claims are
practiced by the DI products (‘‘the DI
products’’); and (3) Hitachi induced
infringement of the asserted claims. Id.
On October 28, 2019, the ALJ issued
an RID finding no violation of section
337 as to the ’718 patent based on noninfringement and the failure of Kyocera
to establish the existence of a domestic
industry that practices the ’718 patent.
Specifically, the RID finds that: (1)
Neither the accused products nor the DI
products satisfy the ‘‘displacement
volume’’ limitation (i.e., ‘‘(A) a hollow
cylinder comprising a cylindrical wall
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
14245
with a movable piston therewith, said
hollow cylinder containing a
displacement volume created by a
stroke of said piston’’) and the
‘‘initiating a driving cycle’’ limitation
(i.e., ‘‘initiating a driving cycle by
pressing said exit end against a
workpiece and actuating said trigger,
thereby causing said fastener driving
mechanism to force the driver member
to move toward said exit end and drive
a fastener into said workpiece’’) of the
asserted claims; and (2) Kyocera failed
to establish that Hitachi possesses the
requisite specific intent to induce
infringement of the claims.
On November 12, 2019, Kyocera
petitioned, and Hitachi contingently
petitioned, for review of the RID. On
November 20, 2019, Kyocera and
Hitachi each filed a response in
opposition to the other party’s petition
for review.
On December 12, 2019, the
Commission determined to review the
RID in part. Specifically, the
Commission determined to review the
RID’s finding that Kyocera did not
establish: (1) Direct infringement of the
asserted claims with respect to the
‘‘displacement volume’’ and ‘‘initiating
a driving cycle’’ limitations; (2) practice
of the asserted claims by the DI products
with respect to these limitations; and (3)
induced infringement of the asserted
claims. 84 FR 69391–92 (Dec. 18, 2019).
The Commission determined not to
review the remainder of the RID. Id. The
Commission also requested the parties
to respond to certain questions
concerning the issues under review with
respect to the ID and RID, and requested
written submissions on the issues of
remedy, the public interest, and
bonding from the parties and interested
non-parties. Id.
On January 3 and 10, 2020, Kyocera
and Hitachi each filed a brief and a
reply brief, respectively, on all issues for
which the Commission requested
written submissions. Having reviewed
the record in this investigation,
including the final ID, the RID, and the
parties’ written submissions, the
Commission has determined to find a
violation of section 337. Specifically,
the Commission has determined that:
(1) The accused and DI products meet
the ‘‘system controller,’’ ‘‘displacement
volume,’’ and ‘‘initiating a driving
cycle’’ limitations of the asserted claims
1, 10, and 16 of the ’718 patent, and
therefore the accused products infringe
these claims; (2) the DI products
practice these claims and therefore
Kyocera has satisfied the technical
prong of the DI requirement; (3) Hitachi
has induced infringement of the
asserted claims; and (4) Kyocera has
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
14246
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 48 / Wednesday, March 11, 2020 / Notices
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with NOTICES
satisfied the economic prong of the DI
requirement under section 337(a)(3)(C).
The Commission reverses the ID’s and
RID’s findings to the contrary and takes
no position on the ID’s finding that
Kyocera has satisfied the economic
prong of the DI requirement under
section 337(a)(3)(B). Accordingly, the
Commission finds a violation based on
Hitachi’s induced infringement of the
asserted claims. The Commission has
issued an opinion explaining the basis
for the Commission’s determination.
Having found a violation of section
337 as to the ’718 patent, the
Commission has determined that the
appropriate form of relief is an LEO
prohibiting the entry of unlicensed gas
spring nailer products and components
thereof that infringe one or more of
claims 1, 10, and 16 of the ’718 patent,
and that are manufactured abroad by or
on behalf of, or imported by or on behalf
of Hitachi, or any of its affiliated
companies, parents, subsidiaries, or
other related business entities, or their
successors or assigns. Appropriate relief
also includes a CDO prohibiting Hitachi
from conducting any of the following
activities in the United States:
Importing, selling, marketing,
advertising, distributing, offering for
sale, transferring (except for
exportation), and soliciting U.S. agents
or distributors for gas spring nailer
products and components thereof that
infringe one or more of claims 1, 10, and
16 of the ’718 patent.
The Commission has further
determined that the public interest
factors enumerated in sections 337(d)(1)
and 337(f)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1) and
1337(f)(1)) do not warrant denying
relief. Finally, the Commission has
determined that no bond is required
during the period of Presidential review
(19 U.S.C. 1337(j)). The Commission’s
order was delivered to the President and
to the United States Trade
Representative on the day of its
issuance.
The Commission has terminated this
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.
Issued: March 5, 2020.
William Bishop,
Supervisory Hearings and Information
Officer.
[FR Doc. 2020–04925 Filed 3–10–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:37 Mar 10, 2020
Jkt 250001
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–1157]
Certain Female Fashion Dresses,
Jumpsuits, Maxi Skirts, and
Accoutrements; Notice of a
Commission Determination Not To
Review an Initial Determination
Granting a Joint Motion To Terminate
the Investigation Based on Settlement;
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 not to
review the presiding administrative law
judge’s (‘‘ALJ’’) initial determination
(‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 9) granting a joint
motion to terminate the investigation
based on a settlement agreement. The
investigation is terminated in its
entirety.
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cathy Chen, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–2392. 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 May 29, 2019, based on a complaint
filed on behalf of Style Pantry LLC
(‘‘Style Pantry’’) of Beverly Hills,
California. 84 FR 24816 (May 29, 2019).
The complaint, as amended, alleges
violations of section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C.
1337, based upon the importation into
the United States, the sale for
importation, and the sale within the
United States after importation of
certain female fashion dresses,
jumpsuits, maxi skirts, and
accoutrements by reason of false
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
designation, false description, dilution,
and obtaining sales by false claim of
association, the threat or effect of which
is to destroy or substantially injure an
industry in the United States. The
notice of investigation named
Amazon.com Inc. (‘‘Amazon’’) of
Seattle, Washington; Xunyun, Jiaxing
Xunyung Imp & Exp Co. Ltd of Zhejiang,
China; and Jianzhang Liao, Pinkqueen
Apparel Inc. of Xiamen, China as
respondents. The Office of Unfair
Import Investigations (‘‘OUII’’) was also
named as a party in this investigation.
Respondents Xunyun, Jiaxing
Xunyung Imp & Exp Co. Ltd and
Jianzhang Liao, Pinkqueen Apparel Inc.
were found in default pursuant to 19
CFR 210.16, for failure to respond to the
complaint and notice of investigation.
See Order No. 7 (Dec. 3, 2019), not rev’d
by Comm’n Notice (Dec. 26, 2019).
On January 22, 2020, Style Pantry and
Amazon filed a joint motion to
terminate the investigation based on a
settlement agreement. On February 3,
2020, OUII filed a response in support
of the motion.
On February 4, 2020, the ALJ issued
the subject ID granting the joint motion
to terminate pursuant to Commission
Rule 210.21(b)(1) (19 CFR 210.21(b)(1)).
See Order No. 9 at 1–2 (Feb. 4, 2020).
The ALJ found that the motion to
terminate complies with the
Commission’s rules, and there is no
evidence that terminating this
investigation by settlement would be
contrary to the public interest. Id. at 2.
No petitions for review were filed.
The Commission has determined not
to review the subject ID. The
investigation is terminated in its
entirety.
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.
Dated: March 5, 2020.
William Bishop,
Supervisory Hearings and Information
Officer.
[FR Doc. 2020–04924 Filed 3–10–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 11, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14244-14246]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04925]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-1082]
Certain Gas Spring Nailer Products and Components Thereof; Notice
of Commission Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337;
Issuance of Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Order;
Termination of the Investigation
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 find a violation of
section 337. Specifically, the Commission has determined to affirm in
part, reverse in part, and modify in part both an initial determination
(``ID'') and a remand initial determination (``RID'') of the presiding
administrative law judge (``ALJ''). The Commission has issued a limited
exclusion order (``LEO'') directed against infringing gas spring nailer
products and components thereof of respondent Hitachi Koki U.S.A., Ltd.
(``Hitachi'') of Braselton, Georgia and a cease and desist order
(``CDO'') directed
[[Page 14245]]
against Hitachi. The investigation is terminated.
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 November 20, 2017, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Kyocera
Senco Brands Inc. (``Kyocera'') of Cincinnati, Ohio. 82 FR 55118-19
(Nov. 20, 2017). The complaint, as amended and 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 gas spring nailer products and
components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S.
Patent Nos. 8,011,547 (``the '547 patent''); 8,267,296 (``the '296
patent''); 8,27,297 (``the '297 patent''); 8,387,718 (``the '718
patent''); 8,286,722 (``the '722 patent''); and 8,602,282 (``the '282
patent''). The complaint further alleges the existence of a domestic
industry. The Commission's notice of investigation named Hitachi as a
respondent. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations is not
participating in the investigation. The '547 patent has been terminated
from the investigation and the notice of investigation was amended to
add claim 30 of the '297 patent to the investigation. Order No. 13
(June 4, 2018), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (June 22, 2018); Order No.
15 (June 19, 2018), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (July 9, 2018), 83 FR
32685-66 (July 15, 2018). Prior to the evidentiary hearing, the parties
stipulated that the '718 patent is the only remaining patent at issue
because no violation could be shown as to the '296, '297, '722, and
'282 patents based on an evidentiary ruling limiting the Kyocera's
expert's testimony. See ID at 1-2. At the hearing, Kyocera asserted
claims 1, 10, and 16 (the ``asserted claims'') of the '718 patent. Id.
at 2, 21.
On June 7, 2019, the ALJ issued a final ID finding no violation of
section 337 as to the '718 patent based on non-infringement and the
failure of Kyocera to establish the existence of a domestic industry
(``DI'') that practices the '718 patent. Specifically, the ID finds
that Kyocera failed to show that the accused products or the domestic
industry products practice the asserted claims. The ID also finds that
Kyocera satisfied the economic prong of the DI requirement under
section 337(a)(3)(B). The ID also includes a recommended determination
on remedy and bonding (``RD'') during the period of Presidential
review. The RD recommends an LEO directed to gas spring nailer products
and components thereof that infringe the asserted claims of the '718
patent, and recommends a CDO directed against Hitachi. The RD does not
recommend imposing a bond.
On August 14, 2019, the Commission determined to review the ID in
part and remand in part. See Comm'n Notice (Aug. 14, 2019).
Specifically, the Commission determined to review the ID's finding that
Kyocera did not establish: (1) Either direct or induced infringement of
the asserted claims of the '718 patent, and (2) practice of the
asserted claims by the DI products to satisfy the DI requirement. The
Commission also determined to review the ID's finding that Kyocera has
satisfied the economic prong of the DI requirement. Id. The Commission
remanded the issues of whether Kyocera has established, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that: (1) The remaining limitations
(irrespective of the ``system controller'' limitation, i.e., ``a
circuit configured to control operation based on received input
signals'') of the asserted claims of the '718 patent are met by the
accused products; (2) the remaining limitations of the asserted claims
are practiced by the DI products (``the DI products''); and (3) Hitachi
induced infringement of the asserted claims. Id.
On October 28, 2019, the ALJ issued an RID finding no violation of
section 337 as to the '718 patent based on non-infringement and the
failure of Kyocera to establish the existence of a domestic industry
that practices the '718 patent. Specifically, the RID finds that: (1)
Neither the accused products nor the DI products satisfy the
``displacement volume'' limitation (i.e., ``(A) a hollow cylinder
comprising a cylindrical wall with a movable piston therewith, said
hollow cylinder containing a displacement volume created by a stroke of
said piston'') and the ``initiating a driving cycle'' limitation (i.e.,
``initiating a driving cycle by pressing said exit end against a
workpiece and actuating said trigger, thereby causing said fastener
driving mechanism to force the driver member to move toward said exit
end and drive a fastener into said workpiece'') of the asserted claims;
and (2) Kyocera failed to establish that Hitachi possesses the
requisite specific intent to induce infringement of the claims.
On November 12, 2019, Kyocera petitioned, and Hitachi contingently
petitioned, for review of the RID. On November 20, 2019, Kyocera and
Hitachi each filed a response in opposition to the other party's
petition for review.
On December 12, 2019, the Commission determined to review the RID
in part. Specifically, the Commission determined to review the RID's
finding that Kyocera did not establish: (1) Direct infringement of the
asserted claims with respect to the ``displacement volume'' and
``initiating a driving cycle'' limitations; (2) practice of the
asserted claims by the DI products with respect to these limitations;
and (3) induced infringement of the asserted claims. 84 FR 69391-92
(Dec. 18, 2019). The Commission determined not to review the remainder
of the RID. Id. The Commission also requested the parties to respond to
certain questions concerning the issues under review with respect to
the ID and RID, and requested written submissions on the issues of
remedy, the public interest, and bonding from the parties and
interested non-parties. Id.
On January 3 and 10, 2020, Kyocera and Hitachi each filed a brief
and a reply brief, respectively, on all issues for which the Commission
requested written submissions. Having reviewed the record in this
investigation, including the final ID, the RID, and the parties'
written submissions, the Commission has determined to find a violation
of section 337. Specifically, the Commission has determined that: (1)
The accused and DI products meet the ``system controller,''
``displacement volume,'' and ``initiating a driving cycle'' limitations
of the asserted claims 1, 10, and 16 of the '718 patent, and therefore
the accused products infringe these claims; (2) the DI products
practice these claims and therefore Kyocera has satisfied the technical
prong of the DI requirement; (3) Hitachi has induced infringement of
the asserted claims; and (4) Kyocera has
[[Page 14246]]
satisfied the economic prong of the DI requirement under section
337(a)(3)(C). The Commission reverses the ID's and RID's findings to
the contrary and takes no position on the ID's finding that Kyocera has
satisfied the economic prong of the DI requirement under section
337(a)(3)(B). Accordingly, the Commission finds a violation based on
Hitachi's induced infringement of the asserted claims. The Commission
has issued an opinion explaining the basis for the Commission's
determination.
Having found a violation of section 337 as to the '718 patent, the
Commission has determined that the appropriate form of relief is an LEO
prohibiting the entry of unlicensed gas spring nailer products and
components thereof that infringe one or more of claims 1, 10, and 16 of
the '718 patent, and that are manufactured abroad by or on behalf of,
or imported by or on behalf of Hitachi, or any of its affiliated
companies, parents, subsidiaries, or other related business entities,
or their successors or assigns. Appropriate relief also includes a CDO
prohibiting Hitachi from conducting any of the following activities in
the United States: Importing, selling, marketing, advertising,
distributing, offering for sale, transferring (except for exportation),
and soliciting U.S. agents or distributors for gas spring nailer
products and components thereof that infringe one or more of claims 1,
10, and 16 of the '718 patent.
The Commission has further determined that the public interest
factors enumerated in sections 337(d)(1) and 337(f)(1) (19 U.S.C.
1337(d)(1) and 1337(f)(1)) do not warrant denying relief. Finally, the
Commission has determined that no bond is required during the period of
Presidential review (19 U.S.C. 1337(j)). The Commission's order was
delivered to the President and to the United States Trade
Representative on the day of its issuance.
The Commission has terminated this 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.
Issued: March 5, 2020.
William Bishop,
Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2020-04925 Filed 3-10-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
