[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