Certain Icemaking Machines and Components Thereof; Notice of a Commission Determination To Review a Final Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Request for Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding; Extension of the Target Date, 95233-95235 [2024-28146]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2024 / Notices
ability to shift supply among different
national markets (including barriers to
importation in foreign markets or
changes in market demand abroad).
Demand conditions to consider include
end uses and applications; the existence
and availability of substitute products;
and the level of competition among the
Domestic Like Product produced in the
United States, Subject Merchandise
produced in each Subject Country, and
such merchandise from other countries.
(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of
whether you agree with the above
definitions of the Domestic Like Product
and Domestic Industry; if you disagree
with either or both of these definitions,
please explain why and provide
alternative definitions.
Authority: This proceeding is being
conducted under authority of Title VII
of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is
published pursuant to § 207.61 of the
Commission’s rules.
By order of the Commission.
Issued: November 25, 2024.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2024–28057 Filed 11–29–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–1369]
Certain Icemaking Machines and
Components Thereof; Notice of a
Commission Determination To Review
a Final Initial Determination Finding a
Violation of Section 337; Request for
Written Submissions on the Issues
Under Review and on Remedy, the
Public Interest, and Bonding;
Extension of the Target Date
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission (‘‘Commission’’) has
determined to review a final initial
determination (‘‘ID’’) of the chief
administrative law judge (‘‘CALJ’’),
finding a violation of section 337 in this
investigation. The Commission requests
written submissions from the parties on
the issues under review and
submissions 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. The Commission has also
determined to extend the target date for
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:25 Nov 29, 2024
Jkt 265001
completion of this investigation to
February 13, 2025.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Benjamin S. Richards, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
708–5453. 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, telephone
(202) 205–1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August
16, 2023, the Commission instituted this
investigation based on a complaint filed
by Hoshizaki America, Inc. of Peachtree
City, Georgia (‘‘Hoshizaki’’). 88 FR
55721–22 (Aug. 16, 2023). The
complaint 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, or the sale
within the United States after
importation of certain icemaking
machines and components thereof by
reason of the infringement of one or
more of claims 1–3, 6–8, and 11–20 of
U.S. Patent No. 10,107,538 (‘‘the ’538
patent’’); claims 1–4, 10–13, and 16 of
U.S. Patent No. 10,113,785 (‘‘the ’785
patent’’); and claims 1, 2, 5–9, and 11–
14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,458,692 (‘‘the
’692 patent’’). Id. at 5572. The
Commission’s notice of investigation
named as respondents Blue Air FSE LLC
of Gardena, California; and Bluenix Co.,
Ltd. of Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea
(collectively, ‘‘Bluenix’’). The Office of
Unfair Import Investigations was also
named as a party in this investigation,
but ceased participating on October 13,
2023. Id.; see also EDIS Doc. ID 805894.
The CALJ issued IDs terminating the
following claims from the investigation
at Hoshizaki’s request: claims 2, 8, 11–
18, and 20 of the ’538 patent; claims 2–
4, 11–13, and 16 of the ’785 patent; and
claims 2, 6–8, and 11–14 of the ’692
patent. Order No. 9 (Dec. 19, 2023),
unreviewed, Comm’n Notice, EDIS Doc.
ID 811832 (Jan. 11, 2024); Order No. 15
(Apr. 8, 2024), unreviewed, Comm’n
Notice, EDIS Doc. ID 819782 (Apr. 26,
2024).
On April 25, 2024, the CALJ issued an
ID granting Hoshizaki’s unopposed
motion for summary determination that
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
95233
Hoshizaki satisfied the domestic
industry requirement. Order No. 16
(Apr. 25, 2024). The Commission
reviewed and then affirmed that ID.
Comm’n Notice, EDIS Doc. ID 822414
(May 29, 2024).
The CALJ conducted an evidentiary
hearing from May 6, 2024, through May
10, 2024.
On August 30, 2024, the CALJ issued
his final ID on violation. That ID found
that a violation of section 337 had
occurred in the importation into the
United States, the sale for importation,
or the sale within the United States after
importation of certain icemaking
machines and components thereof that
infringe certain claims of the ’538, ’785,
and ’692 patents. On September 16,
2024, Bluenix filed a petition for review
of the ID, and Hoshizaki filed a
contingent petition for review of the ID.
On September 23, 2024, Bluenix filed a
response to Hoshizaki’s contingent
petition for review. On September 24,
2024, Hoshizaki filed a response to
Bluenix’s petition for review.
Having reviewed the record of the
investigation, including the final ID, the
parties’ submissions to the CALJ, the
evidentiary record, and the parties’
petitions for review and responses
thereto, the Commission has determined
to review the ID in part. Specifically, the
Commission has determined to review
the ID’s infringement findings for the
’785 and ’692 patents.
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 and the
existing evidentiary record.
(1) For the ’785 and ’692 patents,
please address whether the ‘‘function’’
of the ‘‘inner flat portion’’ limitation for
purposes of the doctrine of equivalents
analysis should include the overall
function of making ice or be more
narrowly defined to just the separation
of active and passive cavities. As a legal
matter, should the doctrine of
equivalents analysis focus on the
specific function of the claim limitation
or the overall function of the claimed
invention? See AquaTex Indus., Inc. v.
Techniche Sols., 479 F.3d 1320, 1326–
27 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (finding error where
the identified function of promoting
evaporation was for the filler layer as a
whole rather than the specific function
of the ‘‘fiberfill batting material’’
limitation). As a factual matter, please
address what role, if any, the inner flat
portions play with respect to the
formation and harvesting of ice in the
claimed invention. See, e.g., ’785 patent
at 5:23–27 (‘‘The degree to which ice
extends over the inner flat portions 30
E:\FR\FM\02DEN1.SGM
02DEN1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
95234
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2024 / Notices
and the adjacent second protrusions 38
is determined, at least in part, by the
length of time that water is applied to
the front and rear plates 14, 16 during
the ice forming cycle.’’).
(2) Please address whether the
difference between an inner flat portion
(as claimed) and a slightly curved inner
portion (as found in the accused
products) will affect the ‘‘way’’ in which
ice is formed (i.e., by preventing the
formation of ‘‘boundary layers,’’ or due
to less surface area of contact between
the plates and the water that forms ice
during the cooling and harvesting
cycles, or due to the shape of the
surrounding tubing coil). See RRB at
18–20.
(3) Please address the ‘‘result’’ that
should be considered for purposes of
the doctrine of equivalents analysis, e.g.,
the efficiency of the icemaking process
or the quantity or quality of ice
produced from the icemaking machine.
Please address whether the difference
between an inner flat portion (as
claimed) and a slightly curved inner
portion (as found in the accused
products) will affect that result.
(4) Assuming that the icemaking
function should be considered in
determining equivalency, please address
the expert testimony and other
supporting evidence for or against your
positions in response to the questions
above (and in particular why the final
ID found Dr. Tanbour’s testimony to be
more credible than Bluenix’s expert).
See ID at 72 n.20.
(5) Please address any evidence of
record indicating what constitutes
‘‘slightly curved inner portions’’ in the
accused products as characterized in the
ID. ID at 69. Will the degree of curvature
of the inner portion make a difference
in an assessment of whether an accused
product is equivalent to the claimed
‘‘inner flat portion’’?
(6) For purposes of applying the
function-way-result test for equivalence,
if you contend that that function of the
claimed ‘‘inner flat portions’’ is
something other than ‘‘separat[ing]
active and passive cavities, which are,
in turn, interspersed so as to define ice
forming sites,’’ ID at 70, indicate
whether and where you raised that
contention in the post-hearing briefing
before the CALJ. Similarly, indicate
whether and where you raised that
contention in your petition for review of
the ID. If you did not contend before the
CALJ or in a petition for review that the
function of the ‘‘inner flat portions’’ is
something other than the function
identified in the ID, explain why that
contention has or has not now been
forfeited, waived, or abandoned.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:25 Nov 29, 2024
Jkt 265001
(7) Do you contend that the asserted
claims of the ’785 and ’692 patents are
limited to evaporators comprising ovalshaped refrigerant conduits? If so,
explain where that limitation appears in
the ’785 and ’692 patents.
(8) Do you contend that the asserted
claims of the ’785 and ’692 patents limit
the surface area of the claimed ‘‘inner
flat portions’’ to a particular size or
range of sizes? If so, explain where that
limitation appears in the ’785 and ’692
patents.
(9) Do you contend that the asserted
claims of the ’785 and ’692 patents are
limited to evaporators that meet a
certain efficiency threshold? If so,
explain where that limitation appears in
the ’785 and ’692 patents.
(10) Do you contend that the
evaporators claimed in the asserted
claims of the ’785 and ’692 patents are
limited to the dimensions shown in
figure 2 of those patents? If so, explain
why your contention is not in conflict
with Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v.
Avia Grp. Int’l, Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 956
(Fed. Cir. 2000) (‘‘[I]t is well established
that patent drawings do not define the
precise proportions of the elements and
may not be relied on to show particular
sizes if the specification is completely
silent on the issue.’’).
(11) In testifying regarding a lack of
equivalence between the claimed ‘‘inner
flat portions’’ of the ’785 and ’692
patents and the accused structures in
the accused products, see tr. 521:2–
526:13, did Bluenix’s expert witness
treat the dimensions shown in figure 2
of the ’785 and ’692 patents as limiting?
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
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 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 December 9,
2024. Reply submissions must be filed
no later than the close of business on
December 16, 2024. No further
E:\FR\FM\02DEN1.SGM
02DEN1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2024 / Notices
submissions on these issues will be
permitted unless otherwise ordered by
the Commission. Opening submissions
are limited to 75 pages. Reply
submissions are limited to 60 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 (Mar.
19, 2020). Submissions should refer to
the investigation number (Inv. No. 337–
TA–1369) 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:25 Nov 29, 2024
Jkt 265001
submissions will be available for public
inspection on EDIS.
The Commission has also determined
to extend the target date for completion
of this investigation to February 13,
2025.
The Commission vote for this
determination took place on November
25, 2024.
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: November 25, 2024.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2024–28146 Filed 11–29–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–750 and 731–
TA–1728 (Preliminary)]
Sol Gel Alumina-Based Ceramic
Abrasive Grains From China; Notice of
Institution of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Investigations and
Scheduling of Preliminary Phase
Investigations
United States International
Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Commission hereby gives
notice of the institution of investigations
and commencement of preliminary
phase antidumping and countervailing
duty investigation Nos. 701–TA–750
and 731–TA–1728 (Preliminary)
pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the
Act’’) to determine whether there is a
reasonable indication that an industry
in the United States is materially
injured or threatened with material
injury, or the establishment of an
industry in the United States is
materially retarded, by reason of
imports of sol gel alumina-based
ceramic abrasive grains from China,
provided for in subheading 2818.10.20
of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of
the United States, that are alleged to be
sold in the United States at less than fair
value and alleged to be subsidized by
the Government of China. Unless the
Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’)
extends the time for initiation, the
Commission must reach a preliminary
determination in antidumping and
countervailing duty investigations in 45
days, or in this case by January 9, 2025.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
95235
The Commission’s views must be
transmitted to Commerce within five
business days thereafter, or by January
16, 2025.
DATES: November 25, 2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Keysha Martinez ((202) 205–2136),
Office of Investigations, U.S.
International Trade Commission, 500 E
Street SW, Washington, DC 20436.
Hearing-impaired persons can obtain
information on this matter by contacting
the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–
205–1810. Persons with mobility
impairments who will need special
assistance in gaining access to the
Commission should contact the Office
of the Secretary at 202–205–2000.
General information concerning the
Commission may also be obtained by
accessing its internet server (https://
www.usitc.gov). The public record for
these investigations may be viewed on
the Commission’s electronic docket
(EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background.—These investigations
are being instituted, pursuant to
sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Tariff
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and
1673b(a)), in response to petitions filed
on November 25, 2024, by Saint-Gobain
Ceramics & Plastics, Inc., Malvern,
Pennsylvania.
For further information concerning
the conduct of these investigations and
rules of general application, consult the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B
(19 CFR part 201), and part 207,
subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).
Participation in the investigations and
public service list.—Persons (other than
petitioners) wishing to participate in the
investigations as parties must file an
entry of appearance with the Secretary
to the Commission, as provided in
§§ 201.11 and 207.10 of the
Commission’s rules, not later than seven
days after publication of this notice in
the Federal Register. Industrial users
and (if the merchandise under
investigation is sold at the retail level)
representative consumer organizations
have the right to appear as parties in
Commission antidumping duty and
countervailing duty investigations. The
Secretary will prepare a public service
list containing the names and addresses
of all persons, or their representatives,
who are parties to these investigations
upon the expiration of the period for
filing entries of appearance.
Limited disclosure of business
proprietary information (BPI) under an
administrative protective order (APO)
and BPI service list.—Pursuant to
§ 207.7(a) of the Commission’s rules, the
E:\FR\FM\02DEN1.SGM
02DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 231 (Monday, December 2, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 95233-95235]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-28146]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-1369]
Certain Icemaking Machines and Components Thereof; Notice of a
Commission Determination To Review a Final Initial Determination
Finding a Violation of Section 337; Request for Written Submissions on
the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest, and
Bonding; Extension of the Target Date
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission (``Commission'') has determined to review a final initial
determination (``ID'') of the chief administrative law judge
(``CALJ''), finding a violation of section 337 in this investigation.
The Commission requests written submissions from the parties on the
issues under review and submissions 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. The Commission has also determined to extend the target date for
completion of this investigation to February 13, 2025.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Benjamin S. Richards, Esq., Office of
the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street
SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-5453. 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, telephone (202) 205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 16, 2023, the Commission
instituted this investigation based on a complaint filed by Hoshizaki
America, Inc. of Peachtree City, Georgia (``Hoshizaki''). 88 FR 55721-
22 (Aug. 16, 2023). The complaint 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, or the
sale within the United States after importation of certain icemaking
machines and components thereof by reason of the infringement of one or
more of claims 1-3, 6-8, and 11-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,107,538 (``the
'538 patent''); claims 1-4, 10-13, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,113,785
(``the '785 patent''); and claims 1, 2, 5-9, and 11-14 of U.S. Patent
No. 10,458,692 (``the '692 patent''). Id. at 5572. The Commission's
notice of investigation named as respondents Blue Air FSE LLC of
Gardena, California; and Bluenix Co., Ltd. of Gyeonggi-do, Republic of
Korea (collectively, ``Bluenix''). The Office of Unfair Import
Investigations was also named as a party in this investigation, but
ceased participating on October 13, 2023. Id.; see also EDIS Doc. ID
805894.
The CALJ issued IDs terminating the following claims from the
investigation at Hoshizaki's request: claims 2, 8, 11-18, and 20 of the
'538 patent; claims 2-4, 11-13, and 16 of the '785 patent; and claims
2, 6-8, and 11-14 of the '692 patent. Order No. 9 (Dec. 19, 2023),
unreviewed, Comm'n Notice, EDIS Doc. ID 811832 (Jan. 11, 2024); Order
No. 15 (Apr. 8, 2024), unreviewed, Comm'n Notice, EDIS Doc. ID 819782
(Apr. 26, 2024).
On April 25, 2024, the CALJ issued an ID granting Hoshizaki's
unopposed motion for summary determination that Hoshizaki satisfied the
domestic industry requirement. Order No. 16 (Apr. 25, 2024). The
Commission reviewed and then affirmed that ID. Comm'n Notice, EDIS Doc.
ID 822414 (May 29, 2024).
The CALJ conducted an evidentiary hearing from May 6, 2024, through
May 10, 2024.
On August 30, 2024, the CALJ issued his final ID on violation. That
ID found that a violation of section 337 had occurred in the
importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the
sale within the United States after importation of certain icemaking
machines and components thereof that infringe certain claims of the
'538, '785, and '692 patents. On September 16, 2024, Bluenix filed a
petition for review of the ID, and Hoshizaki filed a contingent
petition for review of the ID. On September 23, 2024, Bluenix filed a
response to Hoshizaki's contingent petition for review. On September
24, 2024, Hoshizaki filed a response to Bluenix's petition for review.
Having reviewed the record of the investigation, including the
final ID, the parties' submissions to the CALJ, the evidentiary record,
and the parties' petitions for review and responses thereto, the
Commission has determined to review the ID in part. Specifically, the
Commission has determined to review the ID's infringement findings for
the '785 and '692 patents.
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 and the existing
evidentiary record.
(1) For the '785 and '692 patents, please address whether the
``function'' of the ``inner flat portion'' limitation for purposes of
the doctrine of equivalents analysis should include the overall
function of making ice or be more narrowly defined to just the
separation of active and passive cavities. As a legal matter, should
the doctrine of equivalents analysis focus on the specific function of
the claim limitation or the overall function of the claimed invention?
See AquaTex Indus., Inc. v. Techniche Sols., 479 F.3d 1320, 1326-27
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (finding error where the identified function of
promoting evaporation was for the filler layer as a whole rather than
the specific function of the ``fiberfill batting material''
limitation). As a factual matter, please address what role, if any, the
inner flat portions play with respect to the formation and harvesting
of ice in the claimed invention. See, e.g., '785 patent at 5:23-27
(``The degree to which ice extends over the inner flat portions 30
[[Page 95234]]
and the adjacent second protrusions 38 is determined, at least in part,
by the length of time that water is applied to the front and rear
plates 14, 16 during the ice forming cycle.'').
(2) Please address whether the difference between an inner flat
portion (as claimed) and a slightly curved inner portion (as found in
the accused products) will affect the ``way'' in which ice is formed
(i.e., by preventing the formation of ``boundary layers,'' or due to
less surface area of contact between the plates and the water that
forms ice during the cooling and harvesting cycles, or due to the shape
of the surrounding tubing coil). See RRB at 18-20.
(3) Please address the ``result'' that should be considered for
purposes of the doctrine of equivalents analysis, e.g., the efficiency
of the icemaking process or the quantity or quality of ice produced
from the icemaking machine. Please address whether the difference
between an inner flat portion (as claimed) and a slightly curved inner
portion (as found in the accused products) will affect that result.
(4) Assuming that the icemaking function should be considered in
determining equivalency, please address the expert testimony and other
supporting evidence for or against your positions in response to the
questions above (and in particular why the final ID found Dr. Tanbour's
testimony to be more credible than Bluenix's expert). See ID at 72
n.20.
(5) Please address any evidence of record indicating what
constitutes ``slightly curved inner portions'' in the accused products
as characterized in the ID. ID at 69. Will the degree of curvature of
the inner portion make a difference in an assessment of whether an
accused product is equivalent to the claimed ``inner flat portion''?
(6) For purposes of applying the function-way-result test for
equivalence, if you contend that that function of the claimed ``inner
flat portions'' is something other than ``separat[ing] active and
passive cavities, which are, in turn, interspersed so as to define ice
forming sites,'' ID at 70, indicate whether and where you raised that
contention in the post-hearing briefing before the CALJ. Similarly,
indicate whether and where you raised that contention in your petition
for review of the ID. If you did not contend before the CALJ or in a
petition for review that the function of the ``inner flat portions'' is
something other than the function identified in the ID, explain why
that contention has or has not now been forfeited, waived, or
abandoned.
(7) Do you contend that the asserted claims of the '785 and '692
patents are limited to evaporators comprising oval-shaped refrigerant
conduits? If so, explain where that limitation appears in the '785 and
'692 patents.
(8) Do you contend that the asserted claims of the '785 and '692
patents limit the surface area of the claimed ``inner flat portions''
to a particular size or range of sizes? If so, explain where that
limitation appears in the '785 and '692 patents.
(9) Do you contend that the asserted claims of the '785 and '692
patents are limited to evaporators that meet a certain efficiency
threshold? If so, explain where that limitation appears in the '785 and
'692 patents.
(10) Do you contend that the evaporators claimed in the asserted
claims of the '785 and '692 patents are limited to the dimensions shown
in figure 2 of those patents? If so, explain why your contention is not
in conflict with Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Grp. Int'l, Inc.,
222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (``[I]t is well established that
patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements
and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification
is completely silent on the issue.'').
(11) In testifying regarding a lack of equivalence between the
claimed ``inner flat portions'' of the '785 and '692 patents and the
accused structures in the accused products, see tr. 521:2-526:13, did
Bluenix's expert witness treat the dimensions shown in figure 2 of the
'785 and '692 patents as limiting?
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/or 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 December 9, 2024. Reply submissions must be filed
no later than the close of business on December 16, 2024. No further
[[Page 95235]]
submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered
by the Commission. Opening submissions are limited to 75 pages. Reply
submissions are limited to 60 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 (Mar. 19, 2020). Submissions should refer to the
investigation number (Inv. No. 337-TA-1369) 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 has also determined to extend the target date for
completion of this investigation to February 13, 2025.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on November
25, 2024.
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: November 25, 2024.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2024-28146 Filed 11-29-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
