[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 150 (Friday, August 3, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40721-40722]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-19495]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-406, Consolidated Enforcement and Advisory 
Opinion Proceedings]


In the Matter of Certain Lens-Fitted Film Packages; Notice of 
Institution of Formal Enforcement and Advisory Opinion Proceedings

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has instituted a formal enforcement proceeding relating to 
certain remedial orders issued at the conclusion of the above-captioned 
investigation. The Commission has also instituted advisory opinion 
proceedings in the same investigation. The Commission has determined to 
deny complainant's request for separate proceedings to modify the 
remedial orders issued in the above-captioned investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean Jackson, Esq., telephone 202-205-
3104, or Tim Yaworski, Esq., telephone 202-205-3096, Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, 
SW., Washington, D.C. 20436. Copies of all 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. General 
information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing 
its Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this 
investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket 
(EDIS-ON-LINE) at http://dockets.usitc.gov/eol.public. Hearing-impaired 
persons are advised that information on the matter can be obtained by 
contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This investigation was instituted on March 
25, 1998, based on a complaint by Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. (Fuji) of 
Tokyo, Japan. 63 FR 14474. Fuji's complaint alleged unfair acts in 
violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 by 27 respondents in 
the importation and sale of certain lens-fitted film packages (i.e., 
disposable cameras) that allegedly infringed one or more claims of 15 
patents held by complainant Fuji. On February 24, 1999, the presiding 
administrative law judge (ALJ) issued his final initial determination, 
finding a violation of section 337 by 26 of 27 named respondents. 
(During the evidentiary hearing, Fuji withdrew its claims of 
infringement as to one named respondent.) The ALJ found infringement of 
12 utility patents, but found that Fuji failed to carry its burden of 
proof in showing infringement of three asserted design patents. On June 
2, 1999, the Commission terminated the investigation, finding a 
violation of section 337 by 26 respondents, by reason of infringement 
of various claims of all 15 patents, including the design patents. 64 
FR 30541 (June 8, 1999). The Commission issued a general exclusion 
order, prohibiting the importation of disposable cameras that infringed 
any of the claims of the 15 patents at issue, and cease and desist 
orders to 20 domestic respondents.
    On June 27, 2001, Fuji filed a ``Complaint for Enforcement 
Proceedings Under Rule 210.75, Petition for Modification Under Rule 
210.76 and/or Request for Advisory Opinion Under Rule 210.79.'' Fuji's 
enforcement complaint asserts 22 claims contained in nine utility 
patents and named 20 entities as ``enforcement respondents.'' On July 
18, 2001, Fuji withdrew its complaint against one enforcement 
respondent, Jazz Photo Corp. On July 20, Fuji withdrew its complaint 
against two additional enforcement respondents, GrandwayChina and 
Grandway U.S.A.
    The Commission, having examined the request for a formal 
enforcement proceeding filed by Fuji, and having found that the request 
complies with the requirements for institution of a formal enforcement 
proceeding, determined to institute formal enforcement proceedings to 
determine whether the twelve respondents named below are in violation 
of the Commission's general exclusion order and/or cease and desist 
orders issued in the investigation, and what if any enforcement 
measures are appropriate.
    The following were named as parties to the formal enforcement 
proceeding: (1) Complainant Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd; (2) respondent 
Achiever Industries, Ltd., (3) respondent Ad-tek Specialities, Inc.; 
(4) respondent Americam, Inc.; (5) respondent Argus Industries, Inc; 
(6) respondent Boeck's Camera, LLC; (7) respondent Camera Custom Design 
a/k/a Title the Moment; (8) respondent Charles Randolph Company; (9) 
respondent CS Industries a/k/a PLF. Inc.; (10) respondent The Message 
Group; (11) respondent Penmax, Inc.; (12) respondent Photoworks, Inc; 
(13) respondent Vastfame Camera Ltd.; and (14) a Commission 
investigative attorney to be designated by the Director, Office of 
Unfair Import Investigations.
    The Commission, having examined the request for an advisory opinion 
filed by Fuji, and having found that the request complies with the 
requirements for institution of advisory opinion proceedings, 
determined to institute advisory opinion proceedings to determine 
whether the importation of certain cameras would violate the general 
exclusion order issued in the above-captioned investigation. The 
following were named as parties to the advisory opinion proceedings: 
(1) Complainant Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd.; (2) Achiever Industries, 
Ltd., (3) Ad-tek Specialities, Inc.; (4) Americam, Inc.; (5) Argus 
Industries, Inc; (6) Atico International USA, Inc.; (7) Boeck's Camera, 
LLC; (8) Camera Custom Design a/k/a Title the Moment; (9) Charles 
Randolph Company; (10) CS Industries a/k/a PLF. Inc.; (11) Diamond City 
International Gift, Inc.; (12) Elite Brands, Inc.; (13) Highway 
Holdings, Ltd.; (14) The Message Group; (15) Penmax, Inc.; (16) 
Photoworks, Inc; (17) Sky Light International, Ltd.; (18) Vastfame 
Camera Ltd.; and (19) a Commission investigative attorney to be 
designated by the Director, Office of Unfair Import Investigations.

[[Page 40722]]

    The Commission has denied Fuji's request for separate proceedings 
to modify the remedial orders issued in the above-referenced 
investigation. Such orders can be modified, if appropriate, in the 
context of the enforcement proceedings under Commission rule 210.75, 19 
CFR 210.75.
    This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and sections 210.75 
and 210.79 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 
210.75 and 210.79).

    Issued: July 31, 2001.

    By order of the Commission.
Donna R. Koehnke,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-19495 Filed 8-2-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P