Certain Percussive Massage Devices; Commission Determination To Review in Part an Initial Determination Granting in Part a Motion for Summary Determination and Finding a Violation of Section 337; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions, 59187-59189 [2021-23267]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 26, 2021 / Notices
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.).
Jacklynn L. Gould,
Regional Director, Interior Region 8: Lower
Colorado Basin, Bureau of Reclamation.
[FR Doc. 2021–23312 Filed 10–25–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4332–90–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–1206]
Certain Percussive Massage Devices;
Commission Determination To Review
in Part an Initial Determination
Granting in Part a Motion for Summary
Determination and Finding a Violation
of Section 337; Schedule for Filing
Written Submissions
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 an initial determination (‘‘ID’’)
(Order No. 40) of the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’)
granting in part complainant’s motion
for summary determination and finding
a violation of section 337. The
Commission requests written
submissions from the parties on an issue
under review, and requests briefing
from the parties, interested government
agencies, and other interested persons
on the issues of remedy, the public
interest, and bonding, under the
schedule set forth below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cathy Chen, 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 may be viewed on the
Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS)
at https://edis.usitc.gov. For help
accessing EDIS, please email
EDIS3Help@usitc.gov. General
information concerning the Commission
may also be obtained by accessing its
internet server at https://www.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.
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:39 Oct 25, 2021
Jkt 256001
The
Commission instituted this investigation
on July 22, 2020, based on a complaint
filed on behalf of Hyper Ice, Inc.
(‘‘Hyperice’’) of Irvine, California. 85 FR
44322 (July 22, 2020). The complaint, as
supplemented, alleges violations of
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the
importation into the United States, the
sale for importation, or the sale within
the United States after importation of
certain percussive massage devices by
reason of infringement of certain claims
of U.S. Patent No. 10,561,574 (‘‘the ’574
patent’’); U.S. Design Patent No.
D855,822; and U.S. Design Patent No.
D886,317 (collectively, ‘‘Asserted
Design Patents’’). The complaint further
alleges that a domestic industry exists.
The Commission’s notice of
investigation names the following
nineteen respondents: Laiwushiyu
Xinuan Trading Company of Shandong
District, China; Shenzhen Let Us WinWin Technology Co., Ltd. of
Guangdong, China; Shenzhen Qifeng
Technology Co., Ltd. of Guangdong,
China; Shenzhen QingYueTang Ecommerce Co., Ltd. of Guangdong,
China; and Shenzhen Shiluo Trading
Co., Ltd. of Guangdong, China
(collectively, the ‘‘Unserved
Respondents’’); Kinghood International
Logistics Inc. (‘‘Kinghood’’) of La
Mirada, California; Manybo Ecommerce
Ltd. (‘‘Manybo’’) of Hong Kong, China;
Shenzhen Infein Technology Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Shenzhen Infein’’) of Guangdong,
China; Hong Kong Yongxu Capital
Management Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hong Kong
Yongxu’’) of Hong Kong, China; Kula
eCommerce Co., Ltd. (‘‘Kula’’) of
Guangdong, China; Performance Health
Systems, LLC (‘‘Performance Health’’) of
Northbrook, Illinois; Rechar, Inc.
(‘‘Rechar’’) of Strasburg, Colorado; Ning
Chen of Yancheng, Jiangsu China;
Opove, Ltd. (‘‘Opove’’) of Azusa,
California; Shenzhen Shufang ECommerce Co., Ltd. (‘‘Shufang ECommerce’’) of Shenzhen, China; Fu Si
(‘‘Shenzhen Fusi Technology’’) of
Guangdong, China; 1 WODFitters
(‘‘WODFitters’’) Lorton, Virginia;
Massimo Motor Sports, LLC
(‘‘Massimo’’) of Garland, Texas; and
Addaday LLC (‘‘Addaday’’) of Santa
Monica, California. The notice of
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1 Respondent Fu Si’s full name is Shenzhen Fusi
Technology Co., Ltd. See Response of Opove Ltd.,
Shenzhen Shufang E-Commerce Co., Ltd., and Fu Si
to the Complaint and Notice of Investigation at ¶ 40,
EDIS Doc ID 716966 (Aug. 11, 2020). The principal
place of business of Shenzhen Fusi Technology Co.,
Ltd. was changed to 14E, Building A, Guanghao
International Center, No. 441 Meilong Road, Minzhi
Street, Longhua District, Shenzhen, China, 518131
effective September 15, 2020. Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
59187
investigation also names the Office of
Unfair Import Investigations (‘‘OUII’’) as
a party.
On October 16, 2020, the Commission
determined not to review Order No. 11
granting motions to intervene by third
parties Shenzhen Xinde Technology
Co., Ltd. (‘‘Xinde’’) and Yongkang Aijiu
Industrial & Trade Co., Ltd. (‘‘Aijiu’’) in
the investigation. See Order No. 11
(Sept. 25, 2020), unreviewed by Comm’n
Notice (Oct. 16, 2020).
Respondents Addaday, WODFitters,
Massimo, Performance Health, Rechar,
Ning Chen, Opove, Shufang ECommerce, Xinde, Aijiu, and Shenzhen
Fusi Technology were terminated from
the investigation based upon settlement
agreements. See Order No. 10 (Sep. 16,
2020), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice
(Oct. 15, 2020); Order No. 12 (Nov. 4,
2020), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice
(Nov. 20, 2020); Order No. 30 (Apr. 8,
2021), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice
(Apr. 22, 2021).
The Unserved Respondents were
terminated from the investigation based
upon withdrawal of the Complaint. See
Order No. 36 at 2 (Aug. 3, 2021)
unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Aug. 19,
2021).
Respondents Kinghood, Manybo,
Shenzhen Infein, Hong Kong Yongxu,
and Kula (collectively, ‘‘the Defaulting
Respondents’’) were found in default.
See Order No. 17 (Dec. 17. 2020),
unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Jan. 5,
2021).
On May 6, 2021, OUII filed a motion
to terminate the Asserted Design Patents
from this investigation on the ground
that Hyperice did not have sufficient
rights to the design patents at the time
the investigation was instituted. On May
17, 2021, Hyperice filed its response in
opposition to OUII’s motion to
terminate, which included a crossmotion to amend the Complaint to
reflect proper inventorship.
On May 7, 2021, Hyperice filed a
motion for summary determination that
the Defaulting Respondents have
violated section 337 for infringing its
three asserted patents. On May 14, 2021,
Hyperice supplemented its motion with
additional declarations. On May 20,
2021, Hyperice again supplemented its
motion with claim charts and exhibits.
OUII filed a response in support of the
motion with respect to the ’574 patent
but not with respect to the asserted
design patents.
On August 17, 2021, the ALJ issued
Order No. 38 denying Hyperice’s motion
to amend the complaint and the notice
of investigation to reflect proper
inventorship. That same day, the ALJ
issued Order No. 39 granting OUII’s
motion to terminate the Asserted Design
E:\FR\FM\26OCN1.SGM
26OCN1
59188
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 26, 2021 / Notices
Patents for lack of standing. Hyperice
filed a timely petition for review of
Order No. 39 and OUII filed a response
to the petition. November 12, 2021 is
the date by which the Commission must
determine whether to review Order No.
39.
On August 20, 2021, the ALJ issued
the subject ID (Order No. 40) granting in
part Hyperice’s motion for summary
determination of violation of section
337. Specifically, the ID found: (1) That
Hyperice established the importation
requirement as to Defaulting
Respondents Kinghood, Manybo,
Shenzhen Infein, and Hong Kong
Yongxu, but not Kula; (2) that
Defaulting Respondents Kinghood,
Manybo, Shenzhen Infein, and Hong
Kong Yongxu infringe one or more of
claims 1–7, 9, 14, and 15 of the ’574
patent; (3) that Hyperice’s domestic
industry products practice at least one
claim of the ’574 patent; and (4) that
Hyperice has proven that a domestic
industry exists within the United States
related to articles protected by that
patent. Accordingly, the ALJ found that
four of the five Defaulting Respondents
have infringed one or more of claims 1–
7, 9, 14, and 15 of the ’574 patent in
violation of section 337. No petitions for
review of the ID were filed.
The ALJ concurrently issued a
Recommended Determination (‘‘RD’’) on
the issues of remedy and bonding. The
RD recommends the issuance of a
general exclusion order and a cease and
desist order and setting the bond during
the period of Presidential review in the
amount of one hundred percent (100%)
of the entered value.
Having reviewed the record of the
investigation, including the subject ID
and the parties’ submissions to the ALJ,
the Commission has determined to
review in part the ID. Specifically, the
Commission has determined to review
the ID’s finding that Hyperice has
satisfied the economic prong of the
domestic industry requirement with
respect to the ’574 patent. The
Commission adopts the ID’s findings
that Hyperice provided undisputed
evidence that Kinghood’s, Manybo’s,
and Shenzhen Infein’s accused products
infringe claims 1–7, 9, 14 and 15 of the
574 patent and that Hong Kong
Yongxu’s accused products infringe
claims 1–7, 14 and 15 of the 574 patent.
Although Hyperice provided
undisputed evidence that Kula’s
accused products infringe claims 1–7, 9,
14 and 15 of the 574 patent, the
Commission adopts the ID’s finding that
there is insufficient evidence of
importation of Kula’s accused products.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:39 Oct 25, 2021
Jkt 256001
The parties are requested to brief their
positions on only the following issue
under review.
(1) Please explain whether
Complainant’s asserted domestic
industry differs from that of a mere
importer, including by discussing the
claimed expenditures and how the
Commission and the Federal Circuit
have considered such expenditures in
prior investigations. In answering this
question, please address the extent to
which the activities relied upon to show
satisfaction of the economic prong need
to take place in the United States either
as a legal or a practical matter.
(2) Please explain the nature and
significance of Complainant’s
employment of labor or capital in the
United States with respect to articles
protected by the ’574 patent.
(3) Please provide, to the extent
permitted by the record, a breakout of
the claimed allocated expenditures by
type of activities, in particular (but not
limited to) research and development,
design, product engineering, supply
chain and operation management,
customer service, sales, marketing, and
repair and warranty work.
(4) Please discuss whether
Complainant’s asserted domestic
industry investments are significant
under section 337(a)(3)(B) in light of
Commission and Federal Circuit
precedents. Please include in your
response a contextual, quantitative
discussion, including a discussion of
Complainants’ foreign investments and
expenditures relative to its domestic
industry expenditures in these statutory
categories, and/or a discussion of the
value added to the product from
Complainant’s activities in the United
States. Please also include in your
response a discussion of any other
quantitative and qualitative analysis of
the significance of the domestic
industry’s employment of labor or
capital under section 337(a)(3)(B).
(5) Please explain how Complainant’s
domestic workforce contributes to
establishing an industry in the United
States.
In connection with the final
disposition of this investigation, the
statute authorizes issuance of, inter alia,
(1) an exclusion order that could result
in the exclusion of the subject articles
from entry into the United States; and/
or (2) cease and desist orders that could
result in the respondents 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
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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, Comm’n Op. at 7–10
(Dec. 1994).
The statute requires the Commission
to consider the effects of that remedy
upon the public interest. The public
interest factors the Commission will
consider include the effect that an
exclusion order and/or a 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,
disapprove, or take no action on the
Commission’s determination. 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: Parties to the
investigation, interested government
agencies, and any other interested
parties are encouraged to file written
submissions on the issues of remedy,
the public interest, and bonding. Such
submissions should address the
recommended determination by the ALJ
on remedy and bonding.
In their initial submissions,
Complainant is also requested to
identify the remedy sought and
Complainant and OUII are requested to
submit proposed remedial orders for the
Commission’s consideration.
Complainant is further requested to
state the date that the Asserted Patent
expires, to provide the HTSUS
subheadings under which the accused
products are imported and to supply the
identification information for all known
E:\FR\FM\26OCN1.SGM
26OCN1
59189
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 26, 2021 / Notices
importers of the products at issue in this
investigation. The initial written
submissions and proposed remedial
orders must be filed no later than close
of business on Wednesday, November 3,
2021. Reply submissions must be filed
no later than the close of business on
Wednesday, November 10, 2021. No
further submissions on 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. The Commission’s paper
filing requirements in 19 CFR 210.4(f)
are currently waived. 85 FR 15798
(March 19, 2020). Submissions should
refer to the investigation number (Inv.
No. 337–TA–1206) in a prominent place
on the cover page and/or the 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 by marking each document
with a header indicating that the
document contains confidential
information. This marking will be
deemed to satisfy the request procedure
set forth in Rules 201.6(b) and
210.5(e)(2) (19 CFR 201.6(b) &
210.5(e)(2)). Documents for which
confidential treatment by the
Commission is properly sought will be
treated accordingly. A redacted nonconfidential version of the document
must also be filed simultaneously with
any confidential filing. 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, solely for cybersecurity
purposes. All contract personnel will
sign appropriate nondisclosure
agreements. All nonconfidential written
submissions will be available for public
inspection on EDIS.
The Commission vote for this
determination took place on October 20,
2021.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:39 Oct 25, 2021
Jkt 256001
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.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
By order of the Commission.
Issued: October 20, 2021.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
AGENCY:
JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE
UNITED STATES
Committee on Rules of Practice and
Procedure; Meeting of the Judicial
Conference
Judicial Conference of the
United States.
AGENCY:
Committee on Rules of Practice
and Procedure; revised notice of open
meeting.
ACTION:
The Committee on Rules of
Practice and Procedure will hold a
meeting in Washington, DC on January
4, 2022 rather than in Miami, FL as
previously announced. The meeting is
open to the public for observation but
not participation. An agenda and
supporting materials will be posted at
least 7 days in advance of the meeting
at: https://www.uscourts.gov/rulespolicies/records-and-archives-rulescommittees/agenda-books. The
announcement for this meeting was
previously published in the Federal
Register on June 28, 2021.
SUMMARY:
January 4, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Scott Myers, Esq., Acting Chief Counsel,
Rules Committee Staff, Administrative
Office of the U.S. Courts, Thurgood
Marshall Federal Judiciary Building,
One Columbus Circle NE, Suite 7–300,
Washington, DC 20544, Phone (202)
502–1820, RulesCommittee_Secretary@
ao.uscourts.gov.
(Authority: 28 U.S.C. 2073.)
Dated: October 21, 2021.
Shelly L. Cox,
Management Analyst, Rules Committee Staff.
[FR Doc. 2021–23276 Filed 10–25–21; 8:45 am]
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Importer of Controlled Substances
Application: Globyz Pharma, LLC
Globyz Pharma, LLC has
applied to be registered as an importer
of basic class(es) of controlled
substance(s). Refer to SUPPLEMENTAL
INFORMATION listed below for further
drug information.
DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of
the affected basic class(es), and
applicants therefore, may file written
comments on or objections to the
issuance of the proposed registration on
or before November 26, 2021. Such
persons may also file a written request
for a hearing on the application on or
before November 26, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should
be sent to: Drug Enforcement
Administration, Attention: DEA Federal
Register Representative/DPW, 8701
Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia
22152. All requests for a hearing must
be sent to: Drug Enforcement
Administration, Attn: Administrator,
8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield,
Virginia 22152. All requests for a
hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug
Enforcement Administration, Attn:
Hearing Clerk/OALJ, 8701 Morrissette
Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and
(2) Drug Enforcement Administration,
Attn: DEA Federal Register
Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette
Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In
accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this
is notice that on August 18, 2021,
Globyz Pharma, LLC, 2101 Market
Street, Suite 5, Upper Chichester,
Pennsylvania 19061–4001, applied to be
registered as an importer of the
following basic class(es) of controlled
substance(s):
SUMMARY:
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
BILLING CODE 2210–55–P
[Docket No. DEA–917]
Drug Enforcement
Administration, Justice.
ACTION: Notice of application.
[FR Doc. 2021–23267 Filed 10–25–21; 8:45 am]
DATES:
Drug Enforcement Administration
Controlled substance
Amphetamine ..................
Lisdexamfetamine ...........
Oxycodone ......................
I
Drug
code
Schedule
1100
1205
9143
II
II
II
I
The company plans to import finished
dosage unit products of the above
controlled substances solely for its
customers to perform analytical testing
to meet Canadian requirements. The
analysis is required to allow its
customers to export domestically
E:\FR\FM\26OCN1.SGM
26OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 26, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59187-59189]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23267]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-1206]
Certain Percussive Massage Devices; Commission Determination To
Review in Part an Initial Determination Granting in Part a Motion for
Summary Determination and Finding a Violation of Section 337; Schedule
for Filing Written Submissions
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 an initial determination
(``ID'') (Order No. 40) of the presiding administrative law judge
(``ALJ'') granting in part complainant's motion for summary
determination and finding a violation of section 337. The Commission
requests written submissions from the parties on an issue under review,
and requests briefing from the parties, interested government agencies,
and other interested persons on the issues of remedy, the public
interest, and bonding, under the schedule set forth below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cathy Chen, 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 may
be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. For help accessing EDIS, please email
[email protected]. General information concerning the Commission may
also be obtained by accessing its internet server at https://www.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 22, 2020, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Hyper Ice,
Inc. (``Hyperice'') of Irvine, California. 85 FR 44322 (July 22, 2020).
The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation
into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within
the United States after importation of certain percussive massage
devices by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No.
10,561,574 (``the '574 patent''); U.S. Design Patent No. D855,822; and
U.S. Design Patent No. D886,317 (collectively, ``Asserted Design
Patents''). The complaint further alleges that a domestic industry
exists. The Commission's notice of investigation names the following
nineteen respondents: Laiwushiyu Xinuan Trading Company of Shandong
District, China; Shenzhen Let Us Win-Win Technology Co., Ltd. of
Guangdong, China; Shenzhen Qifeng Technology Co., Ltd. of Guangdong,
China; Shenzhen QingYueTang E-commerce Co., Ltd. of Guangdong, China;
and Shenzhen Shiluo Trading Co., Ltd. of Guangdong, China
(collectively, the ``Unserved Respondents''); Kinghood International
Logistics Inc. (``Kinghood'') of La Mirada, California; Manybo
Ecommerce Ltd. (``Manybo'') of Hong Kong, China; Shenzhen Infein
Technology Co., Ltd. (``Shenzhen Infein'') of Guangdong, China; Hong
Kong Yongxu Capital Management Co., Ltd. (``Hong Kong Yongxu'') of Hong
Kong, China; Kula eCommerce Co., Ltd. (``Kula'') of Guangdong, China;
Performance Health Systems, LLC (``Performance Health'') of Northbrook,
Illinois; Rechar, Inc. (``Rechar'') of Strasburg, Colorado; Ning Chen
of Yancheng, Jiangsu China; Opove, Ltd. (``Opove'') of Azusa,
California; Shenzhen Shufang E-Commerce Co., Ltd. (``Shufang E-
Commerce'') of Shenzhen, China; Fu Si (``Shenzhen Fusi Technology'') of
Guangdong, China; \1\ WODFitters (``WODFitters'') Lorton, Virginia;
Massimo Motor Sports, LLC (``Massimo'') of Garland, Texas; and Addaday
LLC (``Addaday'') of Santa Monica, California. The notice of
investigation also names the Office of Unfair Import Investigations
(``OUII'') as a party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Respondent Fu Si's full name is Shenzhen Fusi Technology
Co., Ltd. See Response of Opove Ltd., Shenzhen Shufang E-Commerce
Co., Ltd., and Fu Si to the Complaint and Notice of Investigation at
] 40, EDIS Doc ID 716966 (Aug. 11, 2020). The principal place of
business of Shenzhen Fusi Technology Co., Ltd. was changed to 14E,
Building A, Guanghao International Center, No. 441 Meilong Road,
Minzhi Street, Longhua District, Shenzhen, China, 518131 effective
September 15, 2020. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 16, 2020, the Commission determined not to review Order
No. 11 granting motions to intervene by third parties Shenzhen Xinde
Technology Co., Ltd. (``Xinde'') and Yongkang Aijiu Industrial & Trade
Co., Ltd. (``Aijiu'') in the investigation. See Order No. 11 (Sept. 25,
2020), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Oct. 16, 2020).
Respondents Addaday, WODFitters, Massimo, Performance Health,
Rechar, Ning Chen, Opove, Shufang E-Commerce, Xinde, Aijiu, and
Shenzhen Fusi Technology were terminated from the investigation based
upon settlement agreements. See Order No. 10 (Sep. 16, 2020),
unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Oct. 15, 2020); Order No. 12 (Nov. 4,
2020), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Nov. 20, 2020); Order No. 30 (Apr.
8, 2021), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Apr. 22, 2021).
The Unserved Respondents were terminated from the investigation
based upon withdrawal of the Complaint. See Order No. 36 at 2 (Aug. 3,
2021) unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Aug. 19, 2021).
Respondents Kinghood, Manybo, Shenzhen Infein, Hong Kong Yongxu,
and Kula (collectively, ``the Defaulting Respondents'') were found in
default. See Order No. 17 (Dec. 17. 2020), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice
(Jan. 5, 2021).
On May 6, 2021, OUII filed a motion to terminate the Asserted
Design Patents from this investigation on the ground that Hyperice did
not have sufficient rights to the design patents at the time the
investigation was instituted. On May 17, 2021, Hyperice filed its
response in opposition to OUII's motion to terminate, which included a
cross-motion to amend the Complaint to reflect proper inventorship.
On May 7, 2021, Hyperice filed a motion for summary determination
that the Defaulting Respondents have violated section 337 for
infringing its three asserted patents. On May 14, 2021, Hyperice
supplemented its motion with additional declarations. On May 20, 2021,
Hyperice again supplemented its motion with claim charts and exhibits.
OUII filed a response in support of the motion with respect to the '574
patent but not with respect to the asserted design patents.
On August 17, 2021, the ALJ issued Order No. 38 denying Hyperice's
motion to amend the complaint and the notice of investigation to
reflect proper inventorship. That same day, the ALJ issued Order No. 39
granting OUII's motion to terminate the Asserted Design
[[Page 59188]]
Patents for lack of standing. Hyperice filed a timely petition for
review of Order No. 39 and OUII filed a response to the petition.
November 12, 2021 is the date by which the Commission must determine
whether to review Order No. 39.
On August 20, 2021, the ALJ issued the subject ID (Order No. 40)
granting in part Hyperice's motion for summary determination of
violation of section 337. Specifically, the ID found: (1) That Hyperice
established the importation requirement as to Defaulting Respondents
Kinghood, Manybo, Shenzhen Infein, and Hong Kong Yongxu, but not Kula;
(2) that Defaulting Respondents Kinghood, Manybo, Shenzhen Infein, and
Hong Kong Yongxu infringe one or more of claims 1-7, 9, 14, and 15 of
the '574 patent; (3) that Hyperice's domestic industry products
practice at least one claim of the '574 patent; and (4) that Hyperice
has proven that a domestic industry exists within the United States
related to articles protected by that patent. Accordingly, the ALJ
found that four of the five Defaulting Respondents have infringed one
or more of claims 1-7, 9, 14, and 15 of the '574 patent in violation of
section 337. No petitions for review of the ID were filed.
The ALJ concurrently issued a Recommended Determination (``RD'') on
the issues of remedy and bonding. The RD recommends the issuance of a
general exclusion order and a cease and desist order and setting the
bond during the period of Presidential review in the amount of one
hundred percent (100%) of the entered value.
Having reviewed the record of the investigation, including the
subject ID and the parties' submissions to the ALJ, the Commission has
determined to review in part the ID. Specifically, the Commission has
determined to review the ID's finding that Hyperice has satisfied the
economic prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the
'574 patent. The Commission adopts the ID's findings that Hyperice
provided undisputed evidence that Kinghood's, Manybo's, and Shenzhen
Infein's accused products infringe claims 1-7, 9, 14 and 15 of the 574
patent and that Hong Kong Yongxu's accused products infringe claims 1-
7, 14 and 15 of the 574 patent. Although Hyperice provided undisputed
evidence that Kula's accused products infringe claims 1-7, 9, 14 and 15
of the 574 patent, the Commission adopts the ID's finding that there is
insufficient evidence of importation of Kula's accused products.
The parties are requested to brief their positions on only the
following issue under review.
(1) Please explain whether Complainant's asserted domestic industry
differs from that of a mere importer, including by discussing the
claimed expenditures and how the Commission and the Federal Circuit
have considered such expenditures in prior investigations. In answering
this question, please address the extent to which the activities relied
upon to show satisfaction of the economic prong need to take place in
the United States either as a legal or a practical matter.
(2) Please explain the nature and significance of Complainant's
employment of labor or capital in the United States with respect to
articles protected by the '574 patent.
(3) Please provide, to the extent permitted by the record, a
breakout of the claimed allocated expenditures by type of activities,
in particular (but not limited to) research and development, design,
product engineering, supply chain and operation management, customer
service, sales, marketing, and repair and warranty work.
(4) Please discuss whether Complainant's asserted domestic industry
investments are significant under section 337(a)(3)(B) in light of
Commission and Federal Circuit precedents. Please include in your
response a contextual, quantitative discussion, including a discussion
of Complainants' foreign investments and expenditures relative to its
domestic industry expenditures in these statutory categories, and/or a
discussion of the value added to the product from Complainant's
activities in the United States. Please also include in your response a
discussion of any other quantitative and qualitative analysis of the
significance of the domestic industry's employment of labor or capital
under section 337(a)(3)(B).
(5) Please explain how Complainant's domestic workforce contributes
to establishing an industry in the United States.
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the
statute authorizes issuance of, inter alia, (1) an exclusion order that
could result in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into
the United States; and/or (2) cease and desist orders that could result
in the respondents 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, Comm'n Op.
at 7-10 (Dec. 1994).
The statute requires the Commission to consider the effects of that
remedy upon the public interest. The public interest factors the
Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order
and/or a 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,
disapprove, or take no action on the Commission's determination. 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: Parties to the investigation, interested
government agencies, and any other interested parties are encouraged to
file written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest,
and bonding. Such submissions should address the recommended
determination by the ALJ on remedy and bonding.
In their initial submissions, Complainant is also requested to
identify the remedy sought and Complainant and OUII are requested to
submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission's consideration.
Complainant is further requested to state the date that the Asserted
Patent expires, to provide the HTSUS subheadings under which the
accused products are imported and to supply the identification
information for all known
[[Page 59189]]
importers of the products at issue in this investigation. The initial
written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later
than close of business on Wednesday, November 3, 2021. Reply
submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on
Wednesday, November 10, 2021. No further submissions on 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. The
Commission's paper filing requirements in 19 CFR 210.4(f) are currently
waived. 85 FR 15798 (March 19, 2020). Submissions should refer to the
investigation number (Inv. No. 337-TA-1206) in a prominent place on the
cover page and/or the 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 by marking each document
with a header indicating that the document contains confidential
information. This marking will be deemed to satisfy the request
procedure set forth in Rules 201.6(b) and 210.5(e)(2) (19 CFR 201.6(b)
& 210.5(e)(2)). Documents for which confidential treatment by the
Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. A redacted
non-confidential version of the document must also be filed
simultaneously with any confidential filing. 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, solely for cybersecurity purposes.
All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements.
All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public
inspection on EDIS.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on October
20, 2021.
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 20, 2021.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2021-23267 Filed 10-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
