[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 209 (Friday, October 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66964-66965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27885]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-723]


Certain Inkjet Ink Cartridges With Printheads and Components 
Thereof; Notice of the Commission's Final Determination Finding a 
Violation of Section 337; Issuance of a General Exclusion Order; and 
Termination of the Investigation

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has found a violation of section 337 in this investigation 
and has issued a general exclusion order prohibiting importation of 
infringing inkjet ink cartridges with printheads and components 
thereof.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Panyin A. Hughes, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3042. 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.

[[Page 66965]]

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 June 25, 2010, based on a complaint filed by Hewlett-Packard Company 
of Palo Alto, California and Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P., 
of Houston, Texas (collectively ``HP''). 75 FR 36442 (June 25, 2010). 
The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 
1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the 
sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after 
importation of certain inkjet ink cartridges with printheads and 
components thereof by reason of infringement of various claims of 
United States Patent Nos. 6,234,598 (``the '598 patent''); 6,309,053 
(``the '053 patent''); 6,398,347 (``the '347 patent''); 6,481,817 
(``the '817 patent''); 6,402,279 (``the '279 patent''); and 6,412,917 
(``the '917 patent''). The '917 patent was subsequently terminated from 
the investigation. The complaint named the following entities as 
respondents: MicroJet Technology Co., Ltd. of Hsinchu City, Taiwan 
(``MicroJet''); ain Asia Pacific Microsystems, Inc. of Hsinchu City, 
Taiwan (``APM''); Mipo Technology Limited of Kowloon, Hong Kong (``Mipo 
Tech.''); Mipo Science & Technology Co., Ltd. of Guangzhou, China 
(``Mipo''); Mextec d/b/a Mipo America Ltd. of Miami, Florida 
(``Mextec''); SinoTime Technologies, Inc. d/b/a All Colors of Miami, 
Florida (``SinoTime''); and PTC Holdings Limited of Kowloon, Hong Kong 
(``PTC'').
    Respondents Mipo, Mipo Tech., SinoTime, and Mextec were 
subsequently terminated from the investigation. Respondent MicroJet 
defaulted. Respondent PTC did not participate in the hearing and failed 
to file post-hearing briefs. Pursuant to 19 CFR 210.17(d) and (e), the 
ALJ drew an adverse inference against PTC that ``PTC imported accused 
products into the United States, that those products were manufactured 
by MicroJet, and that those products contain ICs [integrated circuits] 
made by APM.'' Final Initial Determination (``ID'') at 29.
    On June 10, 2011, the Administrative Law Judge (``ALJ'') issued his 
final ID, finding a violation of section 337 by the respondents. 
Specifically, the ALJ found that the Commission has subject matter 
jurisdiction: in rem jurisdiction over the accused products and in 
personam jurisdiction over APM. The ALJ also found that there has been 
an importation into the United States, sale for importation, or sale 
within the United States after importation of the accused inkjet ink 
cartridges with printheads and components thereof. Regarding 
infringement, the ALJ found that MicroJet and PTC directly infringe 
claims 1-6 and 8-10 of the '598 patent; claims 1-6 and 8-17 of the '053 
patent; claims 1, 3-5, and 8-12 of the '347 patent; claims 1-14 of the 
'817 patent; and claims 9-15 of the '279 patent. The ALJ also found 
that MicroJet induces infringement of those claims. The ALJ further 
found that APM does not directly infringe the asserted claims of the 
'598 and does not induce infringement of the asserted patents. The ALJ, 
however, found APM liable for contributory infringement. With respect 
to invalidity, the ALJ found that the asserted patents were not 
invalid. Finally, the ALJ concluded that an industry exists within the 
United States that practices the '598, '053, '347, '817, and '279 
patents as required by 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(2).
    On June 24, 2011, HP filed a contingent petition for review of the 
ID. On June 27, 2011, APM and the Commission investigative attorney 
filed petitions for review of the ID. On July 5, 2011, the parties 
filed responses to the various petitions and contingent petition for 
review.
    On August 11, 2011, the Commission determined to review a single 
issue in the final ID and requested briefing on the issue it determined 
to review, and on remedy, the public interest and bonding. 76 FR 51055 
(Aug. 17, 2011). Specifically, the Commission determined to review the 
finding that HP failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence 
that Respondent APM induced infringement of the asserted patents.
    On August 25, 2011, the parties filed written submissions on the 
issue under review, remedy, the public interest, and bonding. On 
September 1, 2011, the parties filed reply submissions. Although 
Respondent PTC failed to appear at the hearing and failed to file post-
hearing briefs, resulting in the ALJ drawing an adverse inference 
against PTC (ID at 29), PTC filed a letter dated August 24, 2011, 
responding to the issue under review. However, by failing to file a 
post-hearing brief, PTC has waived any arguments it has or may have had 
about any issues in this investigation. See Order No. 2, Ground Rule 
11.1. Accordingly, the Commission declines to consider PTC's 
submission.
    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the 
ALJ's final ID, the Commission has determined that there is a violation 
of section 337. The Commission has determined to reverse the ALJ's 
finding that HP failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence 
that Respondent APM induced infringement of the asserted patents, and 
finds that HP established by a preponderance of the evidence that APM 
induced infringement of the asserted patents. The Commission adopts the 
ALJ's findings in all other respects.
    The Commission has further determined that the appropriate remedy 
is a general exclusion order prohibiting the entry of inkjet ink 
cartridges with printheads and components thereof that infringe any of 
the asserted claims. The Commission has also determined that the public 
interest factors enumerated in section 337(d) (19 U.S.C. 1337(d)) do 
not preclude issuance of the general exclusion order. Finally, the 
Commission has determined that a bond of 100 percent of the entered 
value is required to permit temporary importation during the period of 
Presidential review (19 U.S.C. 1337(j)) of inkjet ink cartridges with 
printheads and components thereof that are subject to the order. The 
Commission's order and opinion were delivered to the President and to 
the United States Trade Representative on the day of their issuance.
    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 210.42-46, 210.50.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: October 24, 2011.
James R. Holbein,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-27885 Filed 10-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P