[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 136 (Friday, July 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41822-41824]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17821]


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

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-740]


 In the Matter of Certain Toner Cartridges and Components 
Thereof; Notice of Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial 
Determination Granting Complainant's Motion for Summary Determination 
of Violation of Section 337

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined not to review the presiding administrative 
law judge's (``ALJ'') initial determination (``ID'') (Order No. 26) 
granting complainant's motion for summary determination of violation of 
Section 337 in Inv. No. 337-TA-740, Certain Toner Cartridges and 
Components Thereof.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Megan M. Valentine, Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2301. Copies of non-
confidential 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 at 
http://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be 
viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information 
on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD 
terminal on (202) 205-1810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation 
on October 12, 2010, based on a complaint filed by Lexmark

[[Page 41823]]

International, Inc. of Lexington, Kentucky (``Lexmark''). 75 FR. 62564-
65 (Oct. 12, 2010). The complaint alleges violations of Section 337 of 
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (``Section 337''), 
in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, 
and the sale within the United States after importation of certain 
toner cartridges and components thereof by reason of infringement of 
certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,337,032; 5,634,169; 5,758,233; 
5,768,661; 5,802,432; 5,875,378; 6,009,291; 6,078,771; 6,397,015; 
6,459,876; 6,816,692; 6,871,031; 7,139,510; 7,233,760; and 7,305,204. 
The complaint further alleges the existence of a domestic industry. The 
Commission's notice of investigation named as respondents Ninestar 
Image Int'l, Ltd. of Guangdong, China; Seine Image International Co. 
Ltd. of New Territories, Hong Kong; Ninestar Technology Company, Ltd. 
of Piscataway, New Jersey; Ziprint Image Corporation of Walnut, 
California; Nano Pacific Corporation of South San Francisco, 
California; IJSS Inc. (d/b/a/TonerZone.com Inc. and Inkjet Superstore) 
of Los Angeles, California; Chung Pal Shin of Cerritos, California; 
Nectron International, Inc. of Sugarland, Texas; Quality Cartridges 
Inc. of Brooklyn, New York; Direct Billing International Incorporated 
(d/b/a/Office Supply Outfitter and d/b/a The Ribbon Connection) of 
Carlsbad, California; E-Toner Mart, Inc. of South El Monte, California; 
Alpha Image Tech of South El Monte, California; ACM Technologies, Inc. 
of Corona, California; Virtual Imaging Products Inc. of North York, 
Ontario; Acecom Inc.--San Antonia (d/b/a/Inksell.com) of San Antonia, 
Texas; Ink Technologies Printer Supplied, LLC (d/b/a/Ink Technologies 
LLC) of Dayton, Ohio; Jahwa Electronics Co., Ltd of Chungchongbuk-do, 
South Korea; Huizhou Jahwa Electronics Co., Ltd. of Guangdong Province, 
China; Copy Technologies, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia; Laser Toner 
Technology, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia; C&R Service, Incorporated of 
Corinth, Texas; Print-Rite Holdings Ltd., of Chai Wan, Hong Kong 
(``Print-Rite''); and Union Technology Int'l (M.C.O.) Co., Ltd. of 
Rodrigo Rodrigues, Macao. The Commission determined not to review an ID 
terminating the investigation as to Print-Rite based on a settlement 
agreement. Commission Notice (Jan. 10, 2011). The Commission determined 
to review and affirm several IDs (Order Nos. 15-19) finding several 
respondents in default under Commission Rules 210.16(a)(2) and (b)(2) 
based on those respondents' elections to default. Commission Notice 
(Mar. 3, 2011) (Order Nos. 15-16); Commission Notice (Mar. 11, 2011) 
(Order Nos. 17-18); Commission Notice (Mar. 11, 2011) (Order No. 19). 
The Commission determined not to review several other IDs (Order Nos. 
23-24) finding the remaining respondents in default. Commission Notice 
(Mar. 23, 2011) (Order No. 23); and Commission Notice (April 6, 2011) 
(Order No. 24).
    On April 25, 2011, Lexmark filed a motion pursuant to Commission 
Rule 210.18 (19 CFR 210.18) for summary determination of violation of 
Section 337 and requesting issuance of a general exclusion order and 
cease and desist orders against defaulting respondents. On May 5, 2011, 
the Commission investigative attorney filed a response supporting the 
motion, on the condition that Lexmark submit (1) A declaration from its 
expert, Charles Reinholtz, averring that the statements in his expert 
report are true and correct, and (2) a declaration from Andrew Gardner 
that the accused products do not have any substantial non-infringing 
uses. Lexmark filed the submissions per the IA's request.
    On June 1, 2011, the ALJ issued the subject ID granting Lexmark's 
motion for summary determination of violation of Section 337. No 
petitions for review of the ID were filed. The ID also contained the 
ALJ's recommended determination of remedy and bonding. Specifically, 
the ALJ recommended issuance of a general exclusion order and cease and 
desist orders against the defaulting respondents. The ALJ further 
recommended that the Commission set a 100% bond during the period of 
Presidential review.
    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the 
ALJ's final ID, the Commission has determined not to review the ID.
    In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the 
Commission may (1) issue an order that could result in the exclusion of 
the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2) 
issue one or more cease and desist orders that could result in the 
respondent(s) being required to cease and desist from engaging in 
unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, 
the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that 
address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party 
seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for 
purposes other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate 
and provide information establishing that activities involving other 
types of entry either are adversely affecting it or likely to do so. 
For background, see In the Matter of Certain Devices for Connecting 
Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-360, USITC Pub. No. 2843 
(December 1994) (Commission Opinion).
    If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must 
consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The 
factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an 
exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders would have on (1) The 
public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. 
economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly 
competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. 
consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written 
submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in 
the context of this investigation.
    If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade 
Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve 
or disapprove the Commission's action. See Presidential Memorandum of 
July 21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). During this period, the 
subject articles would be entitled to enter the United States under 
bond, in an amount determined by the Commission and prescribed by the 
Secretary of the Treasury. The Commission is therefore interested in 
receiving submissions concerning the amount of the bond that should be 
imposed if a remedy is ordered.
    Written Submissions: Parties to the investigation, interested 
government agencies, and any other interested parties are encouraged to 
file written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest, 
and bonding. Such submissions should address the recommended 
determination by the ALJ on remedy and bonding.
    Complainants and the IA are also requested to submit proposed 
remedial orders for the Commission's consideration. Complainants are 
also requested to state the dates that the patents expire and the HTSUS 
numbers under which the accused products are imported. The written 
submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than 
close of business on Monday, August 1, 2011. Reply submissions must be 
filed no later than the close of business on Monday, August 8, 2011. No 
further submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise 
ordered by the Commission.
    Persons filing written submissions must file the original document 
and 12

[[Page 41824]]

true copies thereof on or before the deadlines stated above with the 
Office of the Secretary. Any person desiring to submit a document to 
the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment unless 
the information has already been granted such treatment during the 
proceedings. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary of 
the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the 
Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 C.F.R. 210.6. Documents 
for which confidential treatment by the Commission is sought will be 
treated accordingly. All nonconfidential written submissions will be 
available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary.
    The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in 
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and 
in sections 210.42-46 and 210.50 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42-210.46 and 210.50).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: July 12, 2011.
James R. Holbein,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-17821 Filed 7-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P