[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 17, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16807-16808]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9479]



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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-379]


Certain Starter Kill Vehicle Security Systems; Notice of 
Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination 
Terminating the Investigation and Notice of Schedule for Filing 
Response To Petition for Review of Order Denying Motion for Sanctions

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 the presiding administrative 
law judge's (ALJ's) initial determination (ID) (Order No. 13) in the 
above-captioned investigation terminating the investigation based on 
withdrawal of the complaint. Notice is also given of the schedule for 
complainant to file a response to respondents' petition for review of 
the ALJ's order denying respondents' motion for sanctions (Order No. 
12).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrea C. Casson, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone 202-
205-3105.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 20, 1995, Code Alarm, Inc. of 
Madison Heights, Wisconsin filed a complaint with the Commission 
alleging violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the 
importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the 
sale within the United States after importation of certain starter kill 
vehicle security systems by reason of alleged contributory and induced 
infringement of certain claims of a U.S. patent owned by complainant.
    The Commission instituted an investigation of the complaint, and 
published a notice of investigation in the Federal Register on Nov. 28, 
1995. 60 FR 58638. The notice named Directed Electronics, Inc. of 
Vista, California, and Nutek Company of Taipei, Taiwan as respondents.
    A preliminary conference was held on Feb. 2, 1996, at which the 
deadline for completion of discovery was set as May 31, 1996, and the 
date for commencement of the hearing was set as June 24. At present, 
discovery is in an early phase and no depositions have been taken.
    On Feb. 20, 1996, respondents filed a motion for summary 
determination of non-infringement. On Feb. 26, 1996, complainant filed 
a motion to terminate the investigation, pursuant to Commission rule 
210.21, 19 CFR 210.21, based upon withdrawal of the complaint. 
Respondents opposed the motion, but the Commission investigative 
attorney (IA) filed a response in support of complainant's motion.
    On Feb. 29, 1996, respondents filed a motion for sanctions against 
complainant. Complainant and the IA opposed the motion.
    On March 5, 1996, the ALJ issued an ID granting complainant's 
motion to terminate the investigation. Order No. 13. Concurrently, the 
ALJ issued an order denying respondents' motion for sanctions. Order 
No. 12. On March 15, 1996, respondents filed a petition for review of 
the orders. The IA filed a response in opposition to both aspects of 
the petition. Complainant filed a response in opposition to the 
petition for review of the ID, but did not respond to the petition for 
review of the order denying sanctions.
    Commission rule 210.25(d) provides, in pertinent part, that if an 
ALJ's order concerning sanctions is issued concurrently with an ID 
terminating the investigation, the periods for filing a petition for 
review of such order and for responding to such petition will be 
specified in the Commission notice stating the Commission's decision on 
whether to review the ID. 19 CFR 210.25(d). Since respondents have 
already filed a petition for review of the ALJ's order denying 
sanctions, and the IA has already filed a response to that petition, it 
is unnecessary to set a date

[[Page 16808]]

for respondents to file a petition or for the IA to respond. However, 
pursuant to rule 210.25(d), complainant will have until April 15, 1996, 
to file a response to respondents' petition for review of Order No. 12.
    This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and Commission rules 210.42 and 
210.25, 19 CFR 210.42 and 210.25.
    Copies of the ALJ's ID and his order denying sanctions, 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.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: April 9, 1996.
Donna R. Koehnke,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-9479 Filed 4-16-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P