[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 110 (Thursday, June 9, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-14072]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: June 9, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-355]

 

Certain Vehicle Security Systems and Components Thereof; Decision 
Not To Review an Initial Determination Terminating Investigation Based 
on a Summary Determination of Patent Invalidity and To Affirm the 
Presiding Administrative Law Judge's Decision Not To Terminate the 
Investigation Based Upon Complainant's Withdrawal of its Complaint

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (ID) 
(Order No. 18) issued on April 19, 1994, by the presiding 
administrative law judge (ALJ) in the above-captioned investigation 
terminating the investigation based on summary determination of patent 
invalidity. The Commission also determined to affirm the ALJ's denial 
of complainant's motion to terminate the investigation based upon 
withdrawal of its complaint.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrea C. Casson, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-3105.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this 
investigation, which concerns allegations of violations of section 337 
of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation, sale for importation, and 
sale after importation of certain vehicle security systems and 
components thereof, on August 25, 1993. Complainant Code-Alarm, Inc. 
(``Code-Alarm'') alleged infringement of claims 1-16 of U.S. Letters 
Patent 5,049,867 (the '867 patent). The complaint named four 
respondents: Audiovox Corp. (``Audiovox''); Directed Electronics Inc. 
(``Directed''); Magnadyne Corporation (``Magnadyne'') and Nutek 
Corporation (``Nutek''). On January 3, 1994, Code-Alarm and Audiovox 
filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation with respect to 
Audiovox on the basis of a license agreement, and the ALJ granted that 
motion in an ID that was not reviewed by the Commission. 59 FR 11308 
(March 10, 1994).
    On September 3, 1993, respondent Directed Electronics Inc. 
(``Directed'') filed a motion for summary determination of the 
investigation on the ground that the '867 patent is invalid under 35 
U.S.C. 102(b) by reason of an on-sale bar. Respondents Magnadyne and 
Nutek subsequently joined in Directed's motion. Code-Alarm and the 
Commission investigative attorney (IA) opposed the motion for summary 
determination.
    After discovery and the filing of pre-hearing statements, and six 
days before the trial before the ALJ was to begin, Code-Alarm filed a 
motion to terminate the investigation based upon withdrawal of its 
complaint. Respondents filed an opposition to Code-Alarm's motion to 
terminate, and the IA filed a response supporting a motion to terminate 
with prejudice.
    On February 7, 1994, the ALJ issued an order (Order No. 16) denying 
the motion to terminate as of that time, pending resolution of issues 
raised by the motion for summary determination and other outstanding 
motions. The ALJ postponed the trial and a set schedule for 
supplemental briefing regarding Directed's motion for summary 
determination. The parties thereafter filed supplemental documents 
regarding the motion for summary determination, in which they 
maintained their original positions. On April 19, 1994, the ALJ denied 
Code-Alarm's motion to terminate the investigation based on withdrawal 
of its complaint and issued an ID (Order No. 18) terminating the 
investigation based on summary determination of invalidity based on an 
on-sale bar.
    Code-Alarm petitioned for review of the ID and appealed the ALJ's 
denial of its motion for termination of the investigation based on 
withdrawal of its complaint. The IA petitioned for review of the ID 
granting summary determination. Respondents filed an opposition to both 
petitions. Respondents and the IA filed responses in opposition to 
Code-Alarm's appeal of the denial of the motion to terminate based upon 
withdrawal of the complaint. Respondents also filed a motion to strike 
Code-Alarm's petition for review and a conditional opposition to 
notices of withdrawal filed by Code-Alarm's outside counsel. 
Respondents' motion to strike was denied by the Commission, and the 
Commission allowed complainant's outside counsel to withdraw from 
representing complainant notwithstanding respondents' conditional 
opposition.
    This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and section 210.53 of the 
Commission's Interim Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.53.
    Copies of the nonconfidential version of the ID and all other 
nonconfidential documents filed in connection with this investigation 
are or will be available for inspection during official business hours 
(8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. 
International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, 
telephone 202-205-2000. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that 
information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the 
Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810.

    Issued: June 3, 1994.
    By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-14072 Filed 6-8-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P