[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 63192]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31091]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-372 (Enforcement Proceeding)]


In the Matter of Certain Neodymium-Iron-Boron Magnets, Magnet 
Alloys, and Articles Containing Same; Notice of Commission 
Determination to Deny Motion of YBM Magnex, Inc. to be Substituted for 
Complainant Crucible Materials Corporation

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission (``the Commission'') determined to deny as moot the 
September 25, 1997, motion of YBM Magnex, Inc. (``YBM'') to substitute 
YBM for complainant Crucible Materials Corporation (``Crucible'') in 
the above-referenced enforcement proceeding.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay H. Reiziss, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone 202-
205-3116.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 16, 1996, the Commission instituted a 
formal enforcement proceeding based on an enforcement complaint filed 
by Crucible Materials Corporation (``Crucible'') alleging that 
respondents San Huan New Materials High Tech, Inc. (``San Huan''), 
Ningbo Konit Industries, Inc. (``Ningbo''), and Tridus International, 
Inc. (``Tridus'') (collectively ``respondents'') had violated the 
Commission's October 11, 1995, consent order wherein those respondents 
agreed not to sell for importation, import, or sell after importation 
magnets which infringe any of claims 1-3 of Crucible's U.S. Letters 
Patent 4,588,439 (``the `439 patent'') by importing or selling magnets 
that infringed the claims in issue of the `439 patent. On December 24, 
1996, following an evidentiary hearing, the presiding administrative 
law judge (``ALJ'') issued a recommended determination (``RD'') finding 
that respondents had violated the consent order on 33 different days 
and recommending that the Commission impose a civil penalty of 
$1,625,000 on respondents. The Commission adopted the bulk of the RD's 
findings on violation on April 8, 1997, and issued an opinion 
explaining that determination on April 15, 1997, finding that 
respondents violated the consent order on 31 days between October 11, 
1995, and October 10, 1996. On September 26, 1997, the Commission 
issued its final determination in the enforcement proceeding, imposing 
a $1.55 million civil penalty on respondents, revoking the consent 
order and issuing an exclusion order directed to foreign respondents 
San Huan and Ningbo and a cease and desist order directed to domestic 
respondent Tridus, denying Crucible's request for attorneys' fees and 
its petition for reconsideration of the Commission's prior 
determination regarding the application of the Federal Circuit decision 
in Maxwell v. J. Baker, Inc. 86 F.3d 1098, 29 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001 (Fed. 
Cir.), reh'g denied, suggestion of reh'g in banc declined (1996), cert. 
denied, 117 S. Ct. 1244 (1997), and denying respondents' request that 
the Commission require the domestic industry to submit periodic reports 
regarding its status as a domestic industry. Thus, there are no 
outstanding issues in this investigation.
    On September 25, 1997, YBM moved to be substituted as the 
complainant in this investigation in place of Crucible in light of the 
fact that YBM had acquired the `439 patent from Crucible. On October 6, 
1997, respondents and the Commission investigative attorney filed 
replies to YBM's motion opposing it as moot in light of the fact that 
the Commission concluded this investigation on September 26, 1997.
    Because the Commission concluded this investigation on September 
26, 1997, the Commission determined to deny YBM's motion as moot. The 
Commission noted, however, that it would have granted YBM's motion had 
this proceeding still been ongoing.
    This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. Sec. 1337), and section 
210.75 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 
Sec. 210.75).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: November 20, 1997.
Donna R. Koehnke,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-31091 Filed 11-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P