[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 13, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Page 2232]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-754]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Inv. No. 337-TA-403]


In the Matter of Certain Acesulfame Potassium and Blends and 
Products Containing Same; Notice of Decision to Extend the Deadline for 
Determining Whether to Review an Initial Determination Finding No 
Violation of Section 337 and an Order Denying a 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 to extend by seven (7) days, or until January 
14, 1999, the deadline for determining whether to review an initial 
determination (ID) issued by the presiding administrative law judge 
(ALJ) in the above-captioned investigation finding no violation of 
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and ALJ Order No. 23, which 
denied a motion for sanctions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia P. Johnson, Esq., Office of 
the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, 
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20436, telephone (202) 205-3098. Hearing-
impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be 
obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. 
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by 
accessing its Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation 
on November 14, 1997, based on a complaint filed by Nutrinova Nutrition 
Specialties and Food Ingredients GmbH of Frankfurt am Main, Federal 
Republic of Germany, and Nutrinova Inc., of Somerset, New Jersey 
(collectively referred to as ``complainants''). 62 FR 62070 (1997). The 
complaint named four respondents--Hangzhou Sanhe Food Company Ltd., of 
Zheijiang, People's Republic of China; JRS International, Inc., of 
Garfield, New Jersey; Dingsheng, Inc., of Temple City, California; and 
WYZ Tech., of Chino, California. Hangzhou Sanhe Food Additives Factory, 
of Hangzhou, Zheijiang, Peoples Republic of China was subsequently 
added as a respondent.
    Complainants alleged that respondents had violated section 337 by 
importing into the United States, selling for importation, and/or 
selling within the United States after importation certain acesulfame 
potassium or blends or products containing same by reason of 
infringement of claims 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 of U.S. Letters Patent 4,695,629 
(``the `629 patent'') or claims 1 or 2 of U.S. Letters Patent 4,158,068 
(``the `068 patent''). Acesulfame potassium is an artificial sweetener.
    The ALJ held a tutorial on the technology of artificial sweeteners 
and the processes for their manufacture on June 5, 1998. The 
evidentiary hearing was held from June 29, 1998, to July 10, 1998.
    On May 12, 1998, complainants filed a motion seeking the imposition 
of monetary and non-monetary sanctions against respondents for 
respondents' failure to provide timely discovery. The motion was 
supported in part and opposed in part by the Commission investigative 
attorney (IA) and opposed by respondents. On August 14, 1998, the ALJ 
issued Order No. 23, denying complainants' motion for sanctions, but 
offering complainants an opportunity to seek reopening of the record 
for the purpose of presenting additional facts and arguments relevant 
to respondents' belatedly-produced discovery. Complainants declined to 
seek reopening of the record.
    On November 20, 1998, the ALJ issued his final ID, in which he 
concluded that there was no violation of section 337, based on the 
following findings: (a) claims 1-5 of the `629 patent are not infringed 
by respondents' accused process; (b) claims 1-2 of the `068 patent are 
invalid as obvious over the prior art; ( c) claims 1-2 of the `068 
patent are not infringed by respondents' accused product.
    On December 3, 1998, complainants filed a petition for review of 
the ID and Order No. 23, arguing that the ALJ erred in all of his 
adverse findings relating to failure to impose sanctions and in his 
infringement analysis of the `629 patent. Complainants did not petition 
for review of the findings in the ID with respect to the `068 patent. 
The IA also petitioned for review of Order No. 23 and the ID on policy 
grounds. On December 10, 1998, respondents filed a response to the 
petitions for review. The IA also filed a response to complainants' 
petition for review.
    This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and section 210.42(h)(2) of the 
Commission of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.42(h)(2).
    Copies of the nonconfidential version of Order No. 23 and 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 S.W., Washington, 
D.C. 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. Hearing impaired persons are 
advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting 
the Commission TDD terminal on 202-205-1810.

    Issued: January 7, 1999.

    By order of the Commission.
Donna R. Koehnke,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 99-754 Filed 1-12-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P