[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 222 (Thursday, November 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71354-71355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29665]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-777]


Certain Muzzle-Loading Firearms and Components Thereof 
Determination To Review in Part ALJ Initial Determination; Denial of 
Temporary Relief

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined to review in part the initial determination 
(``ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') on 
August 31, 2011, denying complainants' motion for temporary relief. The 
Commission has determined not to review the ID's denial of temporary 
relief and its analyses of irreparable harm. On review, the Commission 
has determined to take no position on the remainder of the ID.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin D.E. Joffre, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2550. 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 
(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 June 17, 2011, based on a complaint filed by Thompson/Center Arms 
Company, Inc. (``T/C'') and Smith & Wesson Corp. (``Smith & Wesson'') 
of Springfield, Massachusetts (``Complainants''). 76 FR 35469 (Jun. 17, 
2011). The complainants named seven respondents: (1) Dikar Sociedad 
Cooperativa Limitada of Bergara, Spain; (2) Blackpowder Products Inc. 
of Duluth, Georgia; (3) Connecticut Valley Arms of Duluth, Georgia; (4) 
Bergara Barrels North America of Duluth, Georgia; (5) Bergara Barrels 
Europe of Bergara, Spain; (6) Ardesa Firearms of Zamudio (Vizcaya), 
Spain; and (7) Traditional Sporting Goods, Inc., d/b/a Traditions 
Sporting Firearms of Saybrook, Connecticut. The complaint alleges 
violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United 
States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States 
after importation of certain muzzle-loading firearms and components 
thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 
7,908,781 (``the `781 patent''); U.S. Patent No. 7,814,694 (``the `694 
patent''); U.S. Patent No. 7,140,138 (``the `138 patent''); U.S. Patent 
No. 6,604,311 (``the `311 patent''); U.S. Patent No. 5,782,030 (``the 
`030 patent''); and U.S. Patent No. 5,639,981 (``the `981 patent''). On 
July 8, 2011, the ALJ granted Complainants' motion to partially 
terminate the investigation as to the `781 and `138 patents. Order No. 
7 (July 8, 2011), Notice of Commission Determination Not to Review 
(July 22, 2011).
    The Complainants also filed with their complaint in this 
investigation a motion for temporary relief directed only to 
respondents Traditions and Ardesa (collectively, ``TEO Respondents'') 
that requested the Commission to issue a temporary limited exclusion 
order and temporary cease and desist orders. The

[[Page 71355]]

Complainants' motion for temporary relief initially addressed the `781, 
`694, `138, `030, and `981 patents. During the initial pre-hearing 
conference, however, the parties entered into a stipulation that 
limited the Complainants' motion to the `694 patent--specifically, 
claims 1, 10 and 11. The Initial Determination (``ID'') at issue is the 
ALJ's denial of the Complainants' motion. In the subject ID, the ALJ 
analyzed the four factors for determining whether to grant preliminary 
relief: The likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, the 
balance of hardships, and the public interest.
    The ID found that the Complainants had not demonstrated that they 
would suffer irreparable harm. Specifically, the ID found that the 
Complainants failed to demonstrate an irreparable harm from the 
following: (1) Price erosion; (2) exclusivity erosion; (3) loss of 
goodwill and reputation; (4) lost sales and market share; or (5) 
reduced investment. The ALJ found that the lack of irreparable harm 
precluded temporary relief in this investigation. The ALJ also found 
the following: a likelihood of success on the merits with respect to 
claim 10 of the `694 patent; that the balance of hardships did not 
favor either party; and that the public interest would not preclude 
preliminary relief.
    On September 12, 2011, the TEO Respondents filed opening comments 
and on September 14, 2011, the Complainants submitted reply comments as 
authorized by 19 CFR 210.66(c), (e)(1). These comments do not take 
issue with the ALJ's findings regarding the lack of irreparable harm. 
Instead, the comments principally deal with Complainants' likelihood of 
success on the merits, challenging various aspects of the ALJ's 
analyses of infringement and the balance of hardships.
    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the 
ALJ's ID and the subsequent comments and reply comments, the Commission 
finds that irreparable harm has not been demonstrated. It was 
Complainants' burden to demonstrate that such harm was likely absent 
temporary relief, and it failed to meet that burden. Winter v. Natural 
Res. Defense Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 375 (2008). The Commission 
has therefore determined not to review the ID's finding of lack of 
irreparable harm and the ID's denial of temporary relief.
    Because irreparable harm is dispositive here, the Commission need 
not evaluate the remaining factors, i.e., the likelihood of success on 
the merits, the balance of hardships, or the public interest. 
Therefore, the Commission has determined to review the ID's findings on 
the likelihood of success, the balance of hardships, and the public 
interest and to take no position on them. See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet 
Oy, 742 F.2d 1421 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
    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 section 210.66 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure 
(19 CFR 210.66).


    By order of the Commission.

     Issued: November 10, 2011.
James Holbein,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-29665 Filed 11-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P