[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 32 (Friday, February 15, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7196-7197]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-3942]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION


Sanction for Breach of Administrative Protective Order

AGENCY: International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Sanction for breaches of Commission administrative protective 
order.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the sanction imposed by the 
Commission for the breach of the administrative protective order 
(``APO'') issued in Certain Plasma Display Panels and Products 
Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-445. The Commission determined to 
adopt the recommendation of the presiding administrative law judge 
(ALJ) that the firm of Morrison & Foerster be publically reprimanded 
for institutional problems at the firm in its handling of confidential 
business information obtained under administrative protective orders 
(APOs).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean H. Jackson, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-3104. Hearing impaired 
individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained 
by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal at 202-205-1810. General 
information concerning the Commission can also be obtained by accessing 
its Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation 
on January 22, 2001, based on a complaint filed by the Board of 
Trustees of the University of Illinois of Urbana, IL, and Competitive 
Technologies Inc. of Fairfield, CT. The respondents named in the 
investigation were Fujitsu Ltd., Fujitsu General Ltd., Fujitsu General 
America Corp., Fujitsu Microelectronic, Inc., and Fujitsu Hitachi 
Plasma Display Ltd. (collectively, ``Fujitsu''). Complainants alleged 
that Fujitsu violated section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 by 
importing into the United States, selling for importation, and/or 
selling within the United States after importation certain plasma 
display panels and products containing same that infringe certain 
claims of U.S. Letters Patent Nos. 4,866,349 and 5,081,400. 66 FR 6668 
(Jan. 22, 2001). The Commission terminated the investigation based on 
the withdrawal of the complaint on July 31, 2001. 66 FR 40722. (Aug. 3, 
2001).
    On May 8, 2001, the presiding ALJ issued Order No. 15 imposing 
sanctions on Fujitsu and its attorneys for breaching the APO issued in 
the investigation. She also recommended that the Commission publicly 
reprimand the law firm that represented Fujitsu, Morrison & Forester, 
LLP. The Commission has adopted the ALJ's recommendation.
    Attorneys at Morrison & Forester unintentionally disseminated 
sensitive confidential business information (CBI) belonging to 
complainants to seven employees of respondent Fujitsu. One of those 
employees actually read the CBI and further disseminated the CBI to his 
supervisor. The latter two employees are employed in positions in which 
they could use the CBI to complainants' detriment. The ALJ found that 
the disclosure stemmed in part from institutional problems with 
Morrison & Foresters' handling of CBI, as evidenced

[[Page 7197]]

by the fact that five Morrison & Forester attorneys were involved in 
the disclosure.
    This is the second breach within a two year period of an APO issued 
in a section 337 investigation by attorneys with the firm of Morrison 
and Foerster. The earlier breach occurred in Inv. No. 337-TA-419, 
Certain Excimer Laser Systems for Vision Correction Surgery and 
Components Thereof and Methods for Performing Such Surgery, Inv. No. 
337-TA-419, Notice of June 4, 1999.
    Morrison & Foerster is very experienced in Commission practice. 
However, the current breach and the recent prior breach demonstrate a 
disturbing and unacceptable pattern of failure to safeguard information 
released under APO. CBI received from private parties plays an 
important role in Commission investigations. The Commission's ability 
to obtain such information depends on the confidence of the submitting 
parties that their confidential information will be protected.
    The authority for this action is conferred by section 337(n) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337(n) and by Sec. 201.15 (a) of the 
Commission's rules of practice and procedure (19 CFR 201.15 (a)).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: February 13, 2002.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 02-3942 Filed 2-14-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P