[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 77776]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28339]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

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


In the Matter of Certain Lens-Fitted Film Packages; Order

    On October 7, 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit issued two decisions in appeals stemming from the 
above-captioned proceedings, VastFame Camera, Ltd., et al. v. U.S. 
Int'l Trade Com'n, 386 F.3d 1108 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (``VastFame'') and 
Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd., et al. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Com'n, 386 F.3d 
1095 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (``Fuji''). The mandates issued in these cases on 
November 29, 2004. In VastFame, the Court reversed the Commission's 
decision to refuse to allow an importer who had not been a respondent 
in the original investigation to raise the defense of patent invalidity 
in the Commission's enforcement proceedings, vacated the enforcement 
decision, and remanded the case for proceedings consistent with its 
Opinion. In Fuji, the Court affirmed the majority of the Commission's 
determinations at issue, but vacated and remanded the Commission's 
infringement decision as to one asserted claim for redetermination of 
the infringement issue using a claim construction supplied by the 
Court.
    It is hereby ordered that:
    1. This investigation be remanded to Administrative Law Judge Paul 
J. Luckern in order that he may conduct such further proceedings as may 
be necessary to carry out the mandates of the Court and conclude the 
proceedings.
    2. The presiding administrative law judge shall issue an initial 
determination in which he shall determine:
    a. Whether claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 4,884,087 is invalid;
    b. Whether any of the respondents' accused disposable cameras 
imported into or sold in the United States infringe claim 1 of U.S. 
Patent No. 4,972,649 under the Federal Circuit's claim construction; 
and
    c. Whether there are, in light of the determinations made in 
accordance with paragraph b. above, any further violations of section 
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
    3. The presiding administrative law judge may, in his discretion, 
reopen the evidentiary record to the extent necessary to resolve any 
new factual questions presented by the Court's opinion. His ID will be 
processed by the Commission in accordance with Commission Rules 
210.42(h)(2) and 210.43-210.45, 19 CFR 210.42(h)(2) and 210.43-210.45.
    4. In the event that the presiding administrative law judge 
determines that there have been additional violations of section 337 of 
the Tariff Act of 1930, he shall issue a recommended determination on 
whether any further enforcement measures are necessary.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: December 21, 2004.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 04-28339 Filed 12-27-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P