[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 231 (Monday, December 2, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71589-71590]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-30372]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Inv. No. 337-TA-456]


Certain Gel-Filled Wrist Rests and Products Containing Same; 
Notice of Final Determination of No Violation of Section 337 of the 
Tariff Act OF 1930

AGENCY: International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined that there is no violation of section 337 of 
the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the above-captioned 
investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy P. Monaghan, Esq., Office of 
the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-3152. 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.

[[Page 71590]]

    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). 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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation 
on May 17, 2001, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Minnesota 
Mining and Manufacturing Company (now called 3M Company) and 3M 
Innovative Properties Company (collectively complainants), both of St. 
Paul, Minnesota. 66 FR 27535 (2001). The complaint, as supplemented, 
alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the 
importation, sale for importation, and sale after importation of 
certain gel-filled wrist rests and products containing same that 
infringe certain claims of U.S. Letters Patent 5,713,544 (``the `544 
patent''). The Commission named as respondents Velo Enterprise Co. 
Ltd., Taiwan; Aidma Enterprise Co. Ltd. (``Aidma''), Taiwan; Good Raise 
Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. (``Good Raise''), Taiwan; ACCO Brands, 
Inc., Lincolnshire, Illinois; Curtis Computer Products Inc. 
(``Curtis''), Provo, Utah; Allsop, Inc. (``Allsop''), Bellingham, 
Washington; American Covers Inc., Draper, Utah; and Gemini Industries 
(``Gemini''), Clifton, New Jersey. The complaint and notice of 
investigation were later amended to add Crown Vast Development Ltd. and 
Hornleon Company, Ltd. (``Hornleon'') both of Taiwan as respondents. On 
October 22, 2001, the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') 
issued an initial determination (``ID''), Order No. 6, granting 
complainants'' unopposed motion to terminate the investigation with 
respect to respondent Gemini on the basis of a consent order. On 
January 9, 2002, the ALJ issued an ID, Order No. 12, finding 
respondents Good Raise and Aidma in default. On May 15, 2002, the ALJ 
issued an ID, Order No. 15, granting complainants' unopposed motion to 
terminate the investigation with respect to respondent Curtis on the 
basis of a consent order. On May 21, 2002, the ALJ issued an ID, Order 
No. 16, granting complainants' unopposed motion to terminate the 
investigation with respect to respondent Allsop on the basis of a 
consent order. None of these IDs was reviewed by the Commission. The 
ALJ held an evidentiary hearing from January 14, 2002, to January 18, 
2002. On July 24, 2002, the ALJ issued his final ID in which he found 
no infringement of the claims of the ``544 patent at issue, and hence 
no violation of section 337. He also found that complainants had failed 
to demonstrate satisfaction of the technical prong of the domestic 
industry requirement of section 337 for the ``544 patent, and that the 
claims in issue of the ``544 patent are invalid due to obviousness and 
failure to disclose the best mode of practicing the invention. The ALJ 
also found that the claims in issue of the ``544 patent are not invalid 
due to anticipation, indefiniteness, lack of a written description or 
the lack of enablement, or improper joinder or non-joinder of 
inventors; that the ``544 patent is not unenforceable due to 
inequitable conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; and 
that complainants are not barred from asserting the ``544 patent due to 
equitable estoppel. The ALJ noted that respondent Hornleon did not 
respond to the complaint and notice of investigation or provide written 
discovery in this investigation, although a representative of the firm 
appeared and testified at a deposition. Hornleon neither appeared at 
the hearing nor filed briefs. However, complainants did not move to 
find Hornleon in default. The ALJ thus found no violation of section 
337 with respect to Hornleon, and no party contested that finding. All 
parties filed petitions for review and subsequently responded to each 
other's petitions. On September 9, 2002, the Commission determined to 
review: (1) The ID's construction of the asserted claims of the ``544 
patent; (2) the ID's infringement conclusions; (3) the ID's validity 
conclusions with regard to obviousness and failure to disclose best 
mode of practice; and (4) the ID's conclusion with respect to the 
technical prong of the domestic industry requirement.
    The Commission determined not to review the remainder of the ID. In 
accordance with the Commission's instructions, the parties filed their 
main briefs on September 23, 2002, and reply briefs on September 30, 
2002. Having examined the record in this investigation, including the 
briefs and the responses thereto, the Commission determined that there 
is no violation of section 337. More specifically, the Commission found 
that the domestic products of complainants do not practice any claim of 
the ``544 patent, and thus the technical prong of the domestic industry 
requirement of section 337 is not met in this investigation. The 
Commission also found that the accused imported wrist rests, except the 
Jelly Mouse product, infringe the asserted claims of the ``544 patent, 
and that the ``544 patent is not invalid due to obviousness or failure 
to disclose the best mode of practicing the invention. This action is 
taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 
U.S.C. 1337, and sections 210.45-210.51 of the Commission's rules of 
practice and procedure, 19 CFR 210.45-210.51.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: November 25, 2002.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 02-30372 Filed 11-29-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P