Certain Replacement Automotive Lamps II; Notice of Commission Determination To Review a Final Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding; Extension of the Target Date, 31522-31524 [2023-10476]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
31522
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 17, 2023 / Notices
no later than the close of business on
June 1, 2023. 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–1291) 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 May 11,
2023.
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).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:34 May 16, 2023
Jkt 259001
By order of the Commission.
Issued: May 11, 2023.
Katherine Hiner,
Supervisory Attorney.
[FR Doc. 2023–10477 Filed 5–16–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–1588–1590
(Final)]
Certain Preserved Mushrooms From
the Netherlands, Poland, and Spain
Determinations
On the basis of the record 1 developed
in the subject investigations, the United
States International Trade Commission
(‘‘Commission’’) determines, pursuant
to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’),
that an industry in the United States is
materially injured by reason of imports
of certain preserved mushrooms from
the Netherlands, Poland, and Spain,
provided for in subheading 2003.10.01
of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of
the United States, that have been found
by the U.S. Department of Commerce
(‘‘Commerce’’) to be sold in the United
States at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’).2
Background
The Commission instituted these
investigations effective March 31, 2022,
following receipt of petitions filed with
the Commission and Commerce by
Giorgio Foods, Inc., Blandon,
Pennsylvania. The Commission
established a general schedule for the
conduct of the final phase of its
investigations on certain preserved
mushrooms, following a preliminary
determination by Commerce that
imports of certain preserved mushrooms
from France were being sold at LTFV
within the meaning of section 733(b) of
the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of
the scheduling of the final phase of the
Commission’s investigations and of a
public hearing to be held in connection
therewith was given by posting copies
of the notice in the Office of the
Secretary, U.S. International Trade
Commission, Washington, DC, and by
publishing the notice in the Federal
Register of September 21, 2022 (87 FR
57717). The Commission conducted its
hearing on November 17, 2022. All
persons who requested the opportunity
were permitted to participate.
1 The record is defined in § 207.2(f) of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19
CFR 207.2(f)).
2 88 FR 18115, 88 FR 18118, and 88 FR 18120
(March 27, 2023).
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The investigations schedules became
staggered when Commerce did not
postpone the final determination for its
antidumping duty investigation of
certain preserved mushrooms from
France, while it did postpone the final
determinations for its antidumping duty
investigations of certain preserved
mushrooms from the Netherlands,
Poland, and Spain. On January 12, 2023,
the Commission issued a final
affirmative determination in its
antidumping duty investigation of
certain preserved mushrooms from
France (88 FR 2971, January 18, 2023).
Following notification of a final
determination by Commerce that
imports of certain preserved mushrooms
from the Netherlands, Poland, and
Spain were being sold at LTFV within
the meaning of section 735(a) of the Act
(19 U.S.C. 1673d(a)), notice of the
supplemental scheduling of the final
phase of the Commission’s antidumping
duty investigations was given by posting
copies of the notice in the Office of the
Secretary, U.S. International Trade
Commission, Washington, DC, and by
publishing the notice in the Federal
Register of April 5, 2023 (88 FR 20187).
The Commission made these
determinations pursuant to § 735(b) of
the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)). It
completed and filed its determinations
in these investigations on May 11, 2023.
The views of the Commission are
contained in USITC Publication 5419
(May 2023), entitled Certain Preserved
Mushrooms from the Netherlands,
Poland, and Spain: Investigation Nos.
731–TA–1588–1590 (Final).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: May 11, 2023.
Katherine Hiner,
Supervisory Attorney.
[FR Doc. 2023–10439 Filed 5–16–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–1292]
Certain Replacement Automotive
Lamps II; Notice of Commission
Determination To Review a Final Initial
Determination Finding a Violation of
Section 337; Schedule for Filing
Written Submissions on Remedy, the
Public Interest, and Bonding;
Extension of the Target Date
International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\17MYN1.SGM
17MYN1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 17, 2023 / Notices
Commission has determined to review a
final initial determination (‘‘FID’’)
issued by the presiding Chief
Administrative Law Judge (‘‘CALJ’’)
finding a violation of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930. The Commission
requests briefing from the parties on the
issues under review and from the
parties, interested government agencies,
and interested persons on remedy, the
public interest, and bonding based on
the schedule set forth below. The
Commission has also determined to
extend the target date for the completion
of the above-captioned investigation to
September 26, 2023.
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 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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
January 24, 2022, the Commission
instituted this investigation under
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (‘‘section
337’’), based on a complaint filed by
Hyundai Motor Company of Seoul,
Republic of Korea and Hyundai Motor
America, Inc. of Fountain Valley, CA
(collectively, ‘‘Hyundai’’). See 87 FR
3583–84 (Jan. 24, 2022). The complaint
alleges a violation of section 337 based
upon the importation into the United
States, sale for importation, or sale after
importation into the United States of
certain replacement automotive lamps
by reason of infringement of certain
claims of U.S. Design Patent Nos.
D617,478; D618,835; D618,836;
D631,583; D637,319; D640,812;
D655,835; D664,690; D709,217;
D736,436; D738,003; D739,057;
D739,574; D740,980; D759,864;
D759,865; D771,292; D780,351;
D818,163; D829,947; and D834,225
(collectively, ‘‘Asserted Patents’’). Id.
The complaint further alleges that a
domestic industry exists. Id. The notice
of investigation names four respondents:
(1) TYC Brother Industrial Co., Ltd. of
Tainan, Taiwan; (2) Genera Corporation
(dba. TYC Genera) of Brea, California;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:34 May 16, 2023
Jkt 259001
(3) LKQ Corporation of Chicago, Illinois;
and (4) Keystone Automotive Industries,
Inc. of Exeter, Pennsylvania
(collectively, ‘‘Respondents’’). Id. The
Office of Unfair Import Investigations is
not named as a party.
On February 7, 2022, the CALJ
ordered an evidentiary hearing for both
Inv. Nos. 337–TA–1291 and 337–TA–
1292 on the economic prong of the
domestic industry requirement pursuant
to the Commission’s pilot program for
interim initial determinations (‘‘IID’’).
See Order No. 7 (Feb. 7, 2022). The
combined evidentiary hearing was held
on April 20, 2022. On July 1, 2022, the
CALJ issued an IID finding that Hyundai
has satisfied the economic prong of the
domestic industry requirement with
respect to all of the asserted design
patents. On August 24, 2022, the
Commission determined to review the
IID. See Comm’n Notice (Aug. 24, 2022).
On January 24, 2023, the CALJ issued
the subject FID finding a violation of
section 337 by Respondents based on
infringement of each of the Asserted
Patents. The FID also finds that no
Asserted Patent is invalid as anticipated
or obvious. The FID further finds that
Hyundai has satisfied the technical
prong as to certain representative
domestic industry products. Concerning
the economic prong of the domestic
industry requirement, the FID reduces
Hyundai’s alleged investments due to
Hyundai’s failure to establish that
certain of its alleged domestic industry
products are representative of other
alleged domestic industry products. The
FID then finds that the economic prong
of the domestic industry requirement is
satisfied for all of the Asserted Patents
based on the reduced investments. The
CALJ also simultaneously issued a
recommended determination on remedy
and bonding (‘‘RD’’) recommending
that, if the Commission finds a
violation, it should issue a limited
exclusion order but not issue any cease
and desist order against any of the
Respondents.
On February 6, 2023, Respondents
filed a petition for review challenging
the FID’s findings on the economic
prong of the domestic industry
requirement, infringement, and validity.
Also on February 6, 2023, Hyundai filed
a petition for review challenging the
RD’s recommendations and contingently
petitioning regarding the FID’s findings
concerning non-satisfaction of the
technical prong of the domestic industry
requirement for certain nonrepresentative products. On February
14, 2023, Respondents and Hyundai
filed responses to each other’s petitions.
Having examined the record of this
investigation, including the CALJ’s FID,
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
31523
the petitions for review, and the
responses thereto, the Commission has
determined to review the FID in its
entirety. The Commission has also
determined to extend the target date for
the completion of the investigation until
September 26, 2023.
In connection with its review, the
Commission requests responses to the
following questions. The parties are
requested to brief their positions with
reference to the applicable law, the
existing evidentiary record, and the
parties’ submissions during the
investigation.
1. Please identify, with citations to the
record prior to the FID, where Hyundai
satisfied its burden of proof to establish
infringement of each asserted patent by
applying the ordinary observer test. As
a part of your discussion, please
discuss:
a. the impact, if any, of the FID’s
statement that ‘‘rejecting Mr.
Schiavone’s testimony would not
change [the] determination regarding
infringement.’’ FID at 25, n.10.
b. what evidence and argument
beyond side-by-side images of the
patented designs and accused products,
if anything, is needed to satisfy the
burden of proof, and whether Hyundai
provided that proof, in this
investigation. For example, was
Hyundai required to provide a written
explanation in its prehearing and/or
post hearing briefs discussing how the
accused products and each asserted
patent are ‘‘substantially the same’’ from
the perspective of the ordinary
observer?
2. Please identify, with citation to the
record prior to the FID, where Hyundai
satisfied its burden of proof to establish
the technical prong of the domestic
industry requirement for each asserted
patent. As part of your discussion,
please discuss what evidence and
argument beyond side-by-side images of
the patented designs and asserted
domestic industry products, if anything,
is needed to satisfy the burden of proof,
and whether Hyundai provided that
proof, in this investigation. For
example, was Hyundai required to
provide a written explanation in its
prehearing and/or post hearing briefs
discussing how the asserted domestic
industry products and each asserted
patent are ‘‘substantially the same’’ from
the perspective of the ordinary
observer?
3. Please discuss whether Hyundai
satisfied its burden of proof to establish
that it has satisfied the economic prong
of the domestic industry requirement
through significant investments in plant
and equipment based on the revised
patent-by-patent investments to account
E:\FR\FM\17MYN1.SGM
17MYN1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
31524
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 17, 2023 / Notices
for the non-representative products.
Please also identify, with citations to the
record prior to the FID, where Hyundai
satisfied its burden of proof as to the
significance of the revised investments
for each patent.
4. Please address whether the FID, in
finding infringement or satisfaction of
the technical prong as to the asserted
design patents despite complainants’
failure to provide a written explanation
regarding similarity between the
accused products and asserted design
from the standpoint of the ordinary
observer, is consistent with relevant
legal authority. Please specifically
address whether the FID, by providing
such a written explanation in the first
instance, presents issues under the
Administrative Procedure Act.
The parties are invited to brief only
the discrete issues requested above. The
parties are not to brief other issues on
review, which are adequately presented
in the parties’ existing filings.
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 cease and desist
orders 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:34 May 16, 2023
Jkt 259001
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: The parties to
the investigation are requested to file
written submissions on the issues
identified in this notice. 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
CALJ on remedy and bonding.
In its initial submission, Complainant
is also requested to identify the remedy
sought and to submit proposed remedial
orders for the Commission’s
consideration. Complainant is further
requested to state the dates that the
Asserted Patents expire, to provide the
HTSUS subheadings under which the
accused products are imported, and to
supply the identification information for
all known 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 May 25, 2023.
Reply submissions must be filed no later
than the close of business on June 1,
2023. No further submissions on these
issues will be permitted unless
otherwise ordered by the Commission.
Opening submissions are limited to 50
pages. Reply submissions are limited to
30 pages. No further submissions on any
of these issues will be permitted unless
otherwise ordered by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions
must file the original document
electronically on or before the deadlines
stated above. 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–1292) 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
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
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. Any non-party
wishing to submit comments containing
confidential information must serve
those comments on the parties to the
investigation pursuant to the applicable
Administrative Protective Order. A
redacted non-confidential version of the
document must also be filed with the
Commission and served on any parties
to the investigation within two business
days of 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 May 11,
2023.
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: May 11, 2023.
Katherine Hiner,
Supervisory Attorney.
[FR Doc. 2023–10476 Filed 5–16–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
E:\FR\FM\17MYN1.SGM
17MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 17, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31522-31524]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-10476]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-1292]
Certain Replacement Automotive Lamps II; Notice of Commission
Determination To Review a Final Initial Determination Finding a
Violation of Section 337; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions on
Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding; Extension of the Target Date
AGENCY: International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
[[Page 31523]]
Commission has determined to review a final initial determination
(``FID'') issued by the presiding Chief Administrative Law Judge
(``CALJ'') finding a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of
1930. The Commission requests briefing from the parties on the issues
under review and from the parties, interested government agencies, and
interested persons on remedy, the public interest, and bonding based on
the schedule set forth below. The Commission has also determined to
extend the target date for the completion of the above-captioned
investigation to September 26, 2023.
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 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: On January 24, 2022, the Commission
instituted this investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (``section 337''), based on a
complaint filed by Hyundai Motor Company of Seoul, Republic of Korea
and Hyundai Motor America, Inc. of Fountain Valley, CA (collectively,
``Hyundai''). See 87 FR 3583-84 (Jan. 24, 2022). The complaint alleges
a violation of section 337 based upon the importation into the United
States, sale for importation, or sale after importation into the United
States of certain replacement automotive lamps by reason of
infringement of certain claims of U.S. Design Patent Nos. D617,478;
D618,835; D618,836; D631,583; D637,319; D640,812; D655,835; D664,690;
D709,217; D736,436; D738,003; D739,057; D739,574; D740,980; D759,864;
D759,865; D771,292; D780,351; D818,163; D829,947; and D834,225
(collectively, ``Asserted Patents''). Id. The complaint further alleges
that a domestic industry exists. Id. The notice of investigation names
four respondents: (1) TYC Brother Industrial Co., Ltd. of Tainan,
Taiwan; (2) Genera Corporation (dba. TYC Genera) of Brea, California;
(3) LKQ Corporation of Chicago, Illinois; and (4) Keystone Automotive
Industries, Inc. of Exeter, Pennsylvania (collectively,
``Respondents''). Id. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations is not
named as a party.
On February 7, 2022, the CALJ ordered an evidentiary hearing for
both Inv. Nos. 337-TA-1291 and 337-TA-1292 on the economic prong of the
domestic industry requirement pursuant to the Commission's pilot
program for interim initial determinations (``IID''). See Order No. 7
(Feb. 7, 2022). The combined evidentiary hearing was held on April 20,
2022. On July 1, 2022, the CALJ issued an IID finding that Hyundai has
satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement with
respect to all of the asserted design patents. On August 24, 2022, the
Commission determined to review the IID. See Comm'n Notice (Aug. 24,
2022).
On January 24, 2023, the CALJ issued the subject FID finding a
violation of section 337 by Respondents based on infringement of each
of the Asserted Patents. The FID also finds that no Asserted Patent is
invalid as anticipated or obvious. The FID further finds that Hyundai
has satisfied the technical prong as to certain representative domestic
industry products. Concerning the economic prong of the domestic
industry requirement, the FID reduces Hyundai's alleged investments due
to Hyundai's failure to establish that certain of its alleged domestic
industry products are representative of other alleged domestic industry
products. The FID then finds that the economic prong of the domestic
industry requirement is satisfied for all of the Asserted Patents based
on the reduced investments. The CALJ also simultaneously issued a
recommended determination on remedy and bonding (``RD'') recommending
that, if the Commission finds a violation, it should issue a limited
exclusion order but not issue any cease and desist order against any of
the Respondents.
On February 6, 2023, Respondents filed a petition for review
challenging the FID's findings on the economic prong of the domestic
industry requirement, infringement, and validity. Also on February 6,
2023, Hyundai filed a petition for review challenging the RD's
recommendations and contingently petitioning regarding the FID's
findings concerning non-satisfaction of the technical prong of the
domestic industry requirement for certain non-representative products.
On February 14, 2023, Respondents and Hyundai filed responses to each
other's petitions.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the
CALJ's FID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the
Commission has determined to review the FID in its entirety. The
Commission has also determined to extend the target date for the
completion of the investigation until September 26, 2023.
In connection with its review, the Commission requests responses to
the following questions. The parties are requested to brief their
positions with reference to the applicable law, the existing
evidentiary record, and the parties' submissions during the
investigation.
1. Please identify, with citations to the record prior to the FID,
where Hyundai satisfied its burden of proof to establish infringement
of each asserted patent by applying the ordinary observer test. As a
part of your discussion, please discuss:
a. the impact, if any, of the FID's statement that ``rejecting Mr.
Schiavone's testimony would not change [the] determination regarding
infringement.'' FID at 25, n.10.
b. what evidence and argument beyond side-by-side images of the
patented designs and accused products, if anything, is needed to
satisfy the burden of proof, and whether Hyundai provided that proof,
in this investigation. For example, was Hyundai required to provide a
written explanation in its prehearing and/or post hearing briefs
discussing how the accused products and each asserted patent are
``substantially the same'' from the perspective of the ordinary
observer?
2. Please identify, with citation to the record prior to the FID,
where Hyundai satisfied its burden of proof to establish the technical
prong of the domestic industry requirement for each asserted patent. As
part of your discussion, please discuss what evidence and argument
beyond side-by-side images of the patented designs and asserted
domestic industry products, if anything, is needed to satisfy the
burden of proof, and whether Hyundai provided that proof, in this
investigation. For example, was Hyundai required to provide a written
explanation in its prehearing and/or post hearing briefs discussing how
the asserted domestic industry products and each asserted patent are
``substantially the same'' from the perspective of the ordinary
observer?
3. Please discuss whether Hyundai satisfied its burden of proof to
establish that it has satisfied the economic prong of the domestic
industry requirement through significant investments in plant and
equipment based on the revised patent-by-patent investments to account
[[Page 31524]]
for the non-representative products. Please also identify, with
citations to the record prior to the FID, where Hyundai satisfied its
burden of proof as to the significance of the revised investments for
each patent.
4. Please address whether the FID, in finding infringement or
satisfaction of the technical prong as to the asserted design patents
despite complainants' failure to provide a written explanation
regarding similarity between the accused products and asserted design
from the standpoint of the ordinary observer, is consistent with
relevant legal authority. Please specifically address whether the FID,
by providing such a written explanation in the first instance, presents
issues under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The parties are invited to brief only the discrete issues requested
above. The parties are not to brief other issues on review, which are
adequately presented in the parties' existing filings.
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
cease and desist orders 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: The parties to the investigation are requested
to file written submissions on the issues identified in this notice.
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 CALJ on
remedy and bonding.
In its initial submission, Complainant is also requested to
identify the remedy sought and to submit proposed remedial orders for
the Commission's consideration. Complainant is further requested to
state the dates that the Asserted Patents expire, to provide the HTSUS
subheadings under which the accused products are imported, and to
supply the identification information for all known 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 May 25, 2023. Reply submissions must be filed no
later than the close of business on June 1, 2023. No further
submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered
by the Commission. Opening submissions are limited to 50 pages. Reply
submissions are limited to 30 pages. No further submissions on any of
these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the
Commission.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document
electronically on or before the deadlines stated above. 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-1292) 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. Any non-
party wishing to submit comments containing confidential information
must serve those comments on the parties to the investigation pursuant
to the applicable Administrative Protective Order. A redacted non-
confidential version of the document must also be filed with the
Commission and served on any parties to the investigation within two
business days of 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 May 11,
2023.
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: May 11, 2023.
Katherine Hiner,
Supervisory Attorney.
[FR Doc. 2023-10476 Filed 5-16-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
